SMS Spam Fight

[The_Unbeliever]

SIM cards are too cheap to replace. At around R2 per SIM card, it's not going to solve the problem, we just create another problem: When that SIM card is marked as spammer, it's disposed of and replaced. Then when spammer SIM card is not used within a certain period of time, the cell companies recycle the number ... then some poor sod later gets the number and is labeled a spammer even before he's made his first call, and web-based services etc still have that number historically listed as bad.

The spam flag can also be reset when the number is recycled.

And SIM cards was in the region of R0.50c the last time I checked in PnP...

 

[ProSMS]

filtering for SPAM?

The one thing that differs from the email spam problem is that there are a very few choke points where the SMSes can be inspected.

Again, it is not possible to determine from the content of a message, whether someone asked for it or whether it is unsolicited. "Inspection of messages" sounds like censorship to me. I don't want anyone to inspect any messages sent to my number!

The simplest thing would be to put a threshhold on the number of identical messages that may be sent before any matching messages would just be rejected, regardless of the recipient.

A large number of identical messages is no indication of spam either. Flood warning sms's are identical and sent in mass, and it would be disastrous if such warnings are rejected by some software. Many people receive daily share prices or daily exchange rates.

Whether a message is spam has more to do with HOW the number was obtained, and whether the recipient gave PERMISSION. These two things are not contained in the message content, and has nothing to do with the number of identical messages. To get to the bottom of this, requires a proper investigation, and this is exactly what WASPA does for each complaint.

 

[Deenem]

You will know it is spam, but it will only apply to that particular business sending.

If you contact WASPA and tell them that on this day and time your received a spam SMS from a particular company, both the WASP and the business sending are obliged to prevent you from receiving another from that company.

If you receive another sms from the same company, lay another complaint, insist that it is dealt with as a FORMAL complaint. At this point the WASP is likely to get fined as they had an obligation to block the particular client from messaging you.

WASPA will also send an advisory to all clients, should a business continue to spam. There are a list of blacklisted companies that WASPs are not allowed to serve.

The problems is that the business sending can ultimately bypass the system by sending from individual SIM farms.


Unfortunately most companies do not put sufficient effort into managing there databases. Opt out requests are often ignored. They are unlikely to check a global list. WASPA is the only organisation that actively acts on SPAM complaints, and their jurisdiction is limited to their own members.

Forcing the large insurance companies and other corporates to become members of WASPA will help though.

Those are all valid points, but I still feel the reason the cell providers and WASP's are avoiding a global opt-out list is because it places the onus on them to deal with the problem.

Right now, they're happy to let the consumer suffer all the hassles that we have to w.r.t. spam and unwanted content, because the onus is on us to do something about.

They're just avoid the responsibility of doing something about it, by making it our problem.

 

[apogeeza]

The spam flag can also be reset when the number is recycled.

And SIM cards was in the region of R0.50c the last time I checked in PnP...

a simple "reset" at the ISP is moot if: "... web-based services etc still have that number historically listed as bad."

The ISP's are not going to reset all the databases and static HTML pages of all the web-sites and services listing that number as bad.

 

[apogeeza]

WASPA is the only organisation that actively acts on SPAM complaints, and their jurisdiction is limited to their own members.

I agree. The fact that the WASPA contact was involved (copied in the CC list in my demands to "them") was enough to get the situation resolved BEFORE any official complaint was needed. I take my hat off to these guys

 

[ProSMS]

WASPs are not Direct Marketing companies

Those are all valid points, but I still feel the reason the cell providers and WASP's are avoiding a global opt-out list is because it places the onus on them to deal with the problem.

It is a common misconception that WASPs act as Direct Marketing companies. This is not the case.

Global opt out lists only work where the service provider is in control of the messaging campaign and the numbers to be sent to. This is typically the case for Direct Marketing. Global opt out lists are designed and are perfect for Direct Marketing. The Direct Marketer checks the global list, and ensures that they never message the list.

For many WASPs, for all or most traffic they only act as the conduit, and they have no control over message content or message destination. The WASP does not know what the relationship is between the sender and receiver, nor does it know whether the message is promotional in nature.

Should a WASP block messages to numbers in the Global list, it could do so in error for many reasons: 1. The message was not promotional. 2. The recipient currently has a business dealing with the sender. 3. A friend, employer or family member of the recipient sent the message.

So even if WASPs had access to a Global list, they can do nothing with it, unless they act a Direct Marketers.

 

[vodacom3g]

Because we don't have global opt-out lists. The cellphone companies refuse to implement them.

If they did the problem would be solved.

Give some more info on where the cell phone companies refused to implement them, please?

I assume you have some proof of this, an e-mail or perhaps?

 

[apogeeza]

A large number of identical messages is no indication of spam either.

Agreed. Our systems are built on customized deliveries, all our campaigns go out addressed to recipient by name with unique content. So you get an SMS or e-mail: "Dear John Doe. Your account balance as of {date} is {balance} ..." and as such none of the sent SMSes are identical anyway. (Our systems are to account holders only.)

 

[apogeeza]

vodacom3g vodacom3g is online now
Vodacom Representative

When I demanded a letter of apology from HomeMark, Vodacom and AAT both sent me copies of the letters they had sent to HM instructing them to stop spamming me, and in addition, AAT & Vodacom both sent me their own letters of apology, even though I had not asked for it. A huge big Thank You - it was most appreciated.

 

[vodacom3g]

It is a common misconception that WASPs act as Direct Marketing companies. This is not the case.

Global opt out lists only work where the service provider is in control of the messaging campaign and the numbers to be sent to. This is typically the case for Direct Marketing. Global opt out lists are designed and are perfect for Direct Marketing. The Direct Marketer checks the global list, and ensures that they never message the list.

For many WASPs, for all or most traffic they only act as the conduit, and they have no control over message content or message destination. The WASP does not know what the relationship is between the sender and receiver, nor does it know whether the message is promotional in nature.

Should a WASP block messages to numbers in the Global list, it could do so in error for many reasons: 1. The message was not promotional. 2. The recipient currently has a business dealing with the sender. 3. A friend, employer or family member of the recipient sent the message.

So even if WASPs had access to a Global list, they can do nothing with it, unless they act a Direct Marketers.

And just as a WASP can be an aggregation point for a number of Direct Marketers, so the network is an aggregation point for many WASPs (SA and off-shore) and is thus even further removed from the marketer where the opt-out is controlled.

It is therefore not a trivial task to provide an opt-out or blacklisting system at network level. But this does not mean it's not being looked at, thus my request to Deenem above for info on where (Vodacom at least) *refused* to implement such as system.

I've been advocating handset-based blacklisting for many years, just like you blacklist e-mails on your PC. And have picked this up with some handset manufacturers. If you think a bit about it, blacklisting on the handset makes the most sense.

This is now where Roux will jump in and tell us (quite correctly) that it's possible with a Symbian plug-in on his beloved Nokia handsets

 

[xrapidx]

What annoys me is that we are expected to pay to unsubscribe from something we never subscribed to - I think the damn spammers should be responsible for the unsubscribing costs.

 

[ProSMS]

Handset blocking

I've been advocating handset-based blacklisting for many years, just like you blacklist e-mails on your PC. And have picked this up with some handset manufacturers. If you think a bit about it, blacklisting on the handset makes the most sense.

This is a great idea, but will require the ability for WASPs to assign unique originating numbers for each business sending. Without this a consumer might think he is blocking company A, but inadvertantly blocks entities B-Z.

Currently WASPs can tag originating numbers, so it could work if the handset blocking looks at the entire long number.

It is also a good solution for SPAM originating from SIM farms used by individual businesses. It will also discourage "aggregators" from using SIM farms, as their coverage will reduce with time.

 

[Deenem]

Give some more info on where the cell phone companies refused to implement them, please?

I assume you have some proof of this, an e-mail or perhaps?

Yes, I have very conclusive proof.

The fact that there is no global opt-out list proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the cell phone companies have refused to implement a global opt-out list.

What more proof do you want?

 

[apogeeza]

This is now where Roux will jump in and tell us (quite correctly) that it's possible with a Symbian plug-in on his beloved Nokia handsets

Do you have a link to the posts/web-site where I can get this plug-in for my Nokia?
-- pretty please --

 

[Deenem]

It is a common misconception that WASPs act as Direct Marketing companies. This is not the case.

Global opt out lists only work where the service provider is in control of the messaging campaign and the numbers to be sent to. This is typically the case for Direct Marketing. Global opt out lists are designed and are perfect for Direct Marketing. The Direct Marketer checks the global list, and ensures that they never message the list.

For many WASPs, for all or most traffic they only act as the conduit, and they have no control over message content or message destination. The WASP does not know what the relationship is between the sender and receiver, nor does it know whether the message is promotional in nature.

Should a WASP block messages to numbers in the Global list, it could do so in error for many reasons: 1. The message was not promotional. 2. The recipient currently has a business dealing with the sender. 3. A friend, employer or family member of the recipient sent the message.

So even if WASPs had access to a Global list, they can do nothing with it, unless they act a Direct Marketers.

OK, there's a misunderstanding here. When I say WASP I'm referring to the 32xxx numbers in the back of the You magazine. Send an SMS to receive ringtones, wallpapers or whatever.

Those are the services that I want to be able to block on a global opt-out list.

What you are referring to I'd call bulk SMS senders, and even in that case I'd still like a global opt-out list with the ability to allow certain senders. I get SMS's from my bank with once off PIN numbers so I would add them to my opt-in list. I get usage notification from my ISP, so I'd add them to my opt-in list.

 

[apogeeza]

What annoys me is that we are expected to pay to unsubscribe from something we never subscribed to - I think the damn spammers should be responsible for the unsubscribing costs.

http://www.waspa.org.za/code/codeconduct.shtml

5.1.5. Once a recipient has opted out from a service, a message confirming the opt-out should be sent to that recipient. This message must reference the specific service that the recipient has opted-out from, and may not be a premium rated message.

That should be changed to say "must not be charged to the end-consumer in any way or form whatsoever. All charges must be paid by the spamming service provider."

 

[andres101]

SMS messages are electronic communications and thus fall under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act 25 of 2002)

Chapter VII - Consumer Protection
45. Unsolicited goods, services or communications
(Section 45 of the ECT Act)

1) Any person who sends unsolicited commercial communications
to consumers, must provide the consumer

a) with the option to cancel his or her subscription to the
mailing list of that person; and

b) with the identifying particulars of the source from which
that person obtained the consumer's personal information, on request
of the consumer.

2) No agreement is concluded where a consumer has failed to
respond to an unsolicited communication.

3) Any person who fails to comply with or contravenes
subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to
the penalties prescribed in section 89(1).

4) Any person who sends unsolicited commercial communications
to a person who has advised the sender that such communications are
unwelcome, is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to the
penalties prescribed in section 89(1).

After numerous complaints to RCS Credit/Foshini, I decided to open a case at my local police station. Case was opened on 15 January 2009 (I have a case number). If they are successfully prosecuted, I will tackle the other spammers and post a howto. It took me +/-4 hours to get SAPS to open the case!

 

[xrapidx]

After numerous complaints to RCS Credit/Foshini, I decided to open a case at my local police station. Case was opened on 15 January 2009 (I have a case number). If they are successfully prosecuted, I will tackle the other spammers and post a howto. It took me +/-4 hours to get SAPS to open the case!

What was their excuse?

 

[vodacom3g]

Yes, I have very conclusive proof.

The fact that there is no global opt-out list proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the cell phone companies have refused to implement a global opt-out list.

What more proof do you want?

Something slightly more tangible than weak logic, to be honest.

You say the absence of something is automatic proof of intent to not do it?

For example, let's assume you've not written matric yet. Is this proof that you refuse to write matric?

You seem to confuse speculation with proof.

 

[vodacom3g]

SMS messages are electronic communications and thus fall under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act 25 of 2002)


After numerous complaints to RCS Credit/Foshini, I decided to open a case at my local police station. Case was opened on 15 January 2009 (I have a case number). If they are successfully prosecuted, I will tackle the other spammers and post a howto. It took me +/-4 hours to get SAPS to open the case!

This (although painful) is the right way to tackle these cases where you've requested an opt-out and the offending party refuses to honour it.