However, after last night's comment spam attack, I called Sioux Valley Wireless to see what could be done to prevent a similar attack. Their response: "We don't plan to do anything."
Hence, this letter to Sioux Valley Wireless:
I had a less than satisfactory interaction this morning with "Smith" [name deleted] in your department about an outbreak of comment spam I had on my blog last night.
To review the details: an individual operating from this IP:
svwc6-100.svtv.com: 209.62.250.100
...left comment spam on ten of my blog entries last night (Tuesday, October 30, 2007), starting at 6:17 p.m. To stop the comment spam attack, I had to re-engage comment moderation, a policy that hinders the openness and interactivity of my online endeavor. My blog is a business, with advertising, so I rely on good relations with my readership to attract more readers and advertisers. To have to engage comment moderation makes my "stock" in the blog world decrease in the eyes of some readers and thus may impact my bottom line.
I have deleted comment spam from other sources worldwide previously; this was the first time I received a deliberate and traceable local attack. I called Sioux Valley customer service this morning (Wednesday, October 31) to ask if Sioux Valley could take any action to address this problem. After some seeming hesitance at the outset, "Smith" promised to check with someone in the IT department and find out what might be done. Smith did call back quite promptly, within 20 minutes, to confirm that the spam problem was blog-related and then to say Sioux Valley would not take any action.
Reviewing Sioux Valley's Internet Acceptable Use Policy, I find that spamming is only addressed with respect to e-mail, not other forms of online interaction. Perhaps the absence of any mention of blog comment spam is the basis for Sioux Valley's inaction in response to this problem.
However, comment spam is a recognized problem in the blog community. Individual users have tools at their disposal to combat this problem, but as described above, using those tools can hinder the functionality and image of a blog.
As a rural electric cooperative, Sioux Valley Energy generally supports the efforts of rural entrepreneurs to build successful businesses and generate revenue for themselves and their communities. Sioux Valley Wireless's spam filter for e-mail is an important part of promoting this goal (and indeed, my e-mail accounts are remaining relatively spam-free, thank you!). By revising its Internet Acceptable Use Policy to recognize evolving forms of online harassment and by taking action to ensure its resources are not used for ill purposes, Sioux Valley Wireless could further promote honest rural entrepreneurship.
I encourage Sioux Valley Wireless to reconsider its position of taking no action against the user of its services who is generating this comment spam. I also encourage Sioux Valley Wireless to consider updating its policies to reflect the changing nature of Internet usage.
While I will continue to act responsibly to address the problem of comment spam from my end, I will appreciate any help Sioux Valley Wireless can offer to combat spam of any sort. Thank you.
Again, my apologies to my readers who've been enjoying the ease and speed of unmoderated comments. They were working great, especially on days when the editor is busy writing research papers and might not get around to moderating for a few hours. But a blog's gotta do what a blog's gotta do.
We'll look for some solutions, technical and personal (a friendly agreement among neighbors would be nice). In the meantime, your germane and civil comments remain welcome as always. Thanks for reading and commenting!
Sounds like SV Wireless is cutting expenses in a lot areas. Recently, they notified a rural friend that they are scrapping their rural TV services to the region due to the high cost of upgrading their equipment to digital hi-definition TV. Their move will force rural homeowners to purchase satellite dish TV in the near future.
ReplyDelete