Press release
CeBIT 2011 (1. March to 5. March)

CeBIT 2011: Key Milestone for Economic Upswing

Due to recent positive economic indicators, the international ICT industry is regaining its sense of imagination. “CeBIT 2011 stands to benefit from the increasingly positive climate in the ICT marketplace,” says Frank Pörschmann, Senior Vice President of CeBIT at Deutsche Messe AG, at a press conference in Munich. “Our new themes, high-caliber conference program and unique portfolio of services represent a key milestone on the way to sustained economic recovery.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will officially open CeBIT, the world’s leading event for the digital industry, on 28 February 2011 in Hannover, Germany.

CeBIT 2011 is comprised of four user-oriented platforms: CeBIT pro showcases professional ICT applications for companies of all sizes; CeBIT gov caters to decision-makers from the public sector and features solutions for municipal, state and federal administration as well as applications for the healthcare sector; CeBIT lab, the ICT industry’s future laboratory, serves as a platform for universities and research institutes; and CeBIT life focuses on consumer-oriented solutions, giving both professionals and enthusiasts a glimpse at tomorrow’s technology-based lifestyle — whether it involves integrated, intelligent living; technology-supported recreational activities or new forms of Internet usage.

CeBIT life will also highlight generation-specific applications for enhanced quality of life with a special display sector for the so-called “silver surfers”. “Intelligent technology can make life for the older generation in many areas more convenient, social and safe, but the elderly sometimes still have reservations about using these new technologies. CeBIT is dedicated to helping people overcome these inhibitions and will show just how easy modern technology can be”, Pörschmann says.

Following its successful 2010 premier, CeBIT sounds! will again connect the ICT and music industries from 1 to 5 March 2011.

CeBIT is forming alliances with new partners and developing new themes with companies from the user industries. Examples include the topic “eMobility” in transportation and automotive and the topics “Smart Grid” and “Energy Efficiency” in the energy field. The same holds true for public authorities, municipal infrastructure and the healthcare sector. ICT is a key driver of innovations in all these sectors, and our goal is to promote that.

Keynote Theme in 2011: “Work and Life with the Cloud”

With its keynote theme of “Work and Life with the Cloud”, CeBIT 2011 is the first international event to specifically target this major ICT growth sector. “Only CeBIT is capable of presenting such a complex, cross-industry topic like the Cloud in all its facets,” says Pörschmann. Cloud technologies had by now become “fully practicable”, and the task is to develop business models and applications that generate orders for providers.

CeBIT Global Conferences: Prominent Speakers Confirm Participation

In this regard, the CeBIT Global Conferences, which are already fully booked, play a central role. The “Work and Life with the Cloud” keynote theme shapes the entire conference. Confirmed speakers include Jean-Philippe Courtois, President, Microsoft International; Alan Mulally, CEO, Ford Motor Co.; Parker Harris, Co-Founder and EVP, Salesforce; Michael Mendenhall, CMO, Hewlett-Packard; Paul Hermelin, CEO, Capgemini; and Hamid Akhavan, CEO, Siemens Enterprise Communications.

Leading political and international media figures have also committed to the CeBIT Global Conferences, including Neelie Kroes, EU Commissar and Vice President of the European Commission, and Chris Pirillo, Internet celebrity and one of America’s leading bloggers.

House of CIOs: Networking Platform for Users

Alongside the CeBIT Global Conferences, the topic of “Work and Life with the Cloud” will feature in a series of special presentations targeted at decision-makers from user industries. The House of CIOs, for example, will bring together more than 300 top executives from across the globe to discuss pressing issues, while the new Chief Executive Club provides a forum to discuss and plan major projects in a relaxed and confidential atmosphere. “The international project business has become more complex and requires confidential negotiations between a number of different parties and partners. The simple buyer-seller relationship no longer exists. CeBIT offers the perfect environment for promoting international strategies, projects and solutions,” said Pörschmann.

28 February 2011: Merkel and Erdoğan to open CeBIT

More than 2,000 guests are anticipated for the CeBIT Opening Ceremony at the Hannover Congress Center, where German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be joined by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as the official representative of the CeBIT Partner Country. “Turkey will showcase itself as a modern ICT nation at CeBIT,” says Pörschmann, adding that the country would have exhibition stands in several areas of the fair. Turkey is not just a dynamic ICT provider, but also an important sales market with strong potential and an increasingly important trading partner due to its role as a gateway to Asian markets.

Map of Exposition Grounds

Free eTickets for CeBIT 2011

Register for a free eTicket at CeBIT 2011. After registration, each guest will receive a personalized ticket by e-mail. The eTickets need to be printed by the recipient and presented at the turnstiles for entry. The ticket can also be used to travel free of charge on public transport in the Greater Hannover area on the day of the visit. Please note the day of the visit on the eTicket and climb aboard.

You must register your complimentary ticket online before attending the event.

The link for the free eTicket: http://www.cebit.de/promo2011?6ggbo

We wish you every success at CeBIT 2011!

Deutsche Messe expands “Match & Meet” service: Online matchmaking now complemented by onsite matchmaking, live at CeBIT 2011.

Promising Meetings

This expanded offer gives potential business partners the opportunity to do more than just network online – they can now also schedule appointments with the right partners during CeBIT.

To ensure optimum meetings, sellers and buyers need to create an online matchmaking profile before the event. Their customer requirements and key areas of interest are processed by a special software program and rechecked manually by matchmaking specialists to ensure promising meetings, which are arranged by Deutsche Messe.

The Advantages for you

• Up to seven meetings a day (max. 30 minutes each)
• Qualitatively valuable business leads
• Individual, optimized meeting schedule two weeks before CeBIT
• Meetings held in separate section of Hall 8, designed especially for business meetings
• A choice of different participation formats, with optional service packages (equipment): Tables, rooms or lounges
• Onsite interpreters for guaranteed smooth communication
• Support from matchmaking assistants during lead-up to CeBIT and onsite
• Evaluation and post mortem of meetings

E-ticket-users advantage: They can use the Onsite Matchmaking for free, not paying the registration fee (300 Euros) nor the matchmaking fee (100 Euros per meeting).

Get new Business Leads

This online matchmaking service is geared to international providers and buyers, to individuals and delegations who are interested in generating new business leads.

Select your desired participation format and register. You`ll get new business leads as a result.

Deutsche Messe is cooperating with Aachen-based TEMA Technologie Marketing at CeBIT 2011. TEMA possesses many years of experience in matchmaking services, with a proven record of success at numerous conferences and events.

Visit this website again soon for further information, including our online matchmaking flyer and a link for registration and the conditions for participation.

Free eTickets for CeBIT 2011

Register for a free eTicket at CeBIT 2011. After registration, each guest will receive a personalized ticket by e-mail. The eTickets need to be printed by the recipient and presented at the turnstiles for entry. The ticket can also be used to travel free of charge on public transport in the Greater Hannover area on the day of the visit. Please note the day of the visit on the eTicket and climb aboard.

You must register your complimentary ticket online before attending the event.

The link for the free eTicket: http://www.cebit.de/promo2011?6ggbo

We wish you every success at CeBIT 2011!

There are a number of services and software systems that mail sites and users can use to reduce the load of spam on their systems and mailboxes. Some of these depend upon rejecting email from Internet sites known or likely to send spam. Others rely on automatically analyzing the content of email messages and weeding out those which resemble spam. These two approaches are sometimes termed blocking and filtering.

Blocking and filtering each have their advocates and advantages. While both reduce the amount of spam delivered to users’ mailboxes, blocking does much more to alleviate the bandwidth cost of spam, since spam can be rejected before the message is transmitted to the recipient’s mail server. Filtering tends to be more thorough, since it can examine all the details of a message. Many modern spam filtering systems take advantage of machine learning techniques, which vastly improve their accuracy over manual methods. However, some people find filtering intrusive to privacy, and many mail administrators prefer blocking to deny access to their systems from sites tolerant of spammers.

DNSBLs

DNS-based Blackhole Lists, or DNSBLs, are used for heuristic filtering and blocking. A site publishes lists (typically of IP addresses) via the DNS, in such a way that mail servers can easily be set to reject mail from those sources. There are literally scores of DNSBLs, each of which reflects different policies: some list sites known to emit spam; others list open mail relays or proxies; others list ISPs known to support spam. Other DNS-based anti-spam systems list known good (“white”) or bad (“black”) IPs domains or URLs, including RHSBLs and URIBLs. For history, details, and examples of DNSBLs, see DNSBL.

Content-based filtering

Until recently, content filtering techniques relied on mail administrators specifying lists of words or regular expressions disallowed in mail messages. Thus, if a site receives spam advertising “herbal Viagra”, the administrator might place these words in the filter configuration. The mail server would thence reject any message containing the phrase.

Content based filtering can also filter based on content other than the words and phrases that make up the body of the message. Primarily, this means looking at the header of the email, the part of the message that contains information about the message, and not the body text of the message. Spammers will often spoof fields in the header in order to hide their identities, or to try to make the email look more legitimate than it is; many of these spoofing methods can be detected. Also, spam sending software often produces a header that violates the RFC 2822 standard on how the email header is supposed to be formed.

Disadvantages of this static filtering are threefold: First, it is time-consuming to maintain. Second, it is prone to false positives. Third, these false positives are not equally distributed: manual content filtering is prone to reject legitimate messages on topics related to products advertised in spam. A system administrator who attempts to reject spam messages which advertise mortgage refinancing may easily inadvertently block legitimate mail on the same subject.

Finally, spammers can change the phrases and spellings they use, or employ methods to try to trip up phrase detectors. This means more work for the administrator. However, it also has some advantages for the spam fighter. If the spammer starts spelling “Viagra” as “V1agra” or “Via_gra”, it makes it harder for the spammer’s intended audience to read their messages. If they try to trip up the phrase detector, by, for example, inserting an invisible-to-the-user HTML comment in the middle of a word (“Via<!—->gra”), this sleight of hand is itself easily detectable, and is a good indication that the message is spam. And if they send spam that consists entirely of images, so that anti-spam software can’t analyze the words and phrases in the message, the fact that there is no readable text in the body can be detected.

However, content filtering can also be implemented by examining the URLs present (i.e. spamvertised) in an email message. This form of content filtering is much harder to disguise as the URLs must resolve to a valid domain name. Extracting a list of such links and comparing them to published sources of spamvertised domains is a simple and reliable way to eliminate a large percentage of spam via content analysis.

Statistical filtering

Statistical filtering was first proposed in 1998 by Mehran Sahami et al., at the AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization. A statistical filter is a kind of document classification system, and a number of machine learning researchers have turned their attention to the problem. Statistical filtering was popularized by Paul Graham’s influential 2002 article A Plan for Spam, which proposed the use of naive Bayes classifiers to predict whether messages are spam or not – based on collections of spam and nonspam (“ham”) email submitted by users. [1]

Statistical filtering, once set up, requires no maintenance per se: instead, users mark messages as spam or nonspam and the filtering software learns from these judgements. Thus, a statistical filter does not reflect the software author’s or administrator’s biases as to content, but it does reflect the user’s biases as to content; a biochemist who is researching Viagra won’t have messages containing the word “Viagra” flagged as spam, because “Viagra” will show up often in his or her legitimate messages. A statistical filter can also respond quickly to changes in spam content, without administrative intervention.

Spammers have attempted to fight statistical filtering by inserting many random but valid “noise” words or sentences into their messages while attempting to hide them from view, making it more likely that the filter will classify the message as neutral. Attempts to hide the noise words include setting them in tiny font or the same colour as the background. However, these noise countermeasures seem to have been largely ineffective.

Software programs that implement statistical filtering include Bogofilter, the e-mail programs Mozilla and Mozilla Thunderbird, and later revisions of SpamAssassin. Another interesting project is CRM114 which hashes phrases and does bayesian classification on the phrases.

There is also the free mail filter POPFile [2] which sorts mail in as many categories as you want (family, friends, co-worker, spam, whatever) with bayesian filtering.

Checksum-based filtering

Checksum-based filter takes advantage of the fact that often, for any individual spammer, all of the messages he or she sends out will be mostly identical, the only differences being web bugs, and when the text of the message contains the recipient’s name or email address. Checksum-based filters strip out everything that might vary between messages, reduce what remains to a checksum, and look that checksum up in a database which collects the checksums of messages that email recipients consider to be spam (some people have a button on their email client which they can click to nominate a message as being spam); if the checksum is in the database, the message is likely to be spam.

The advantage of this type of filtering is that it lets ordinary users help identify spam, and not just administrators, thus vastly increasing the pool of spam fighters. The disadvantage is that spammers can insert unique invisible gibberish — known as hashbusters — into the middle of each of their messages, thus making each message unique and having a different checksum. This leads to an arms race between the developers of the checksum software and the developers of the spam-generating software.

Checksum based filtering methods include:

• Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse
• Vipul’s Razor

Authentication and Reputation (A&R)

A number of systems have been proposed to allow acceptance of email from servers which have authenticated in some fashion as senders of only legitimate email. Many of these systems use the DNS, as do DNSBLs; but rather than being used to list nonconformant sites, the DNS is used to list sites authorized to send email, and (sometimes) to determine the reputation of those sites. Other methods of identifying ham and spam are still used. The A&R allows much ham to be more reliably identified, which allows spam detectors to be made more sensitive without causing more false positive results. The increased sensitivity allows more spam to be identified as such. Also, A&R methods tend to be less resource-intensive than other filtering methods, which can be skipped for messages identified by A&R as ham.

Sender-supported whitelists and tags

There are a small number of organizations which offer IP whitelisting and/or licensed tags that can be placed in email (for a fee) to assure recipients’ systems that the messages thus tagged are not spam. This system relies on legal enforcement of the tag. The intent is for email administrators to whitelist messages bearing the licensed tag.

A potential difficulty with such systems is that the licensing organization makes its money by licensing more senders to use the tag — not by strictly enforcing the rules upon licensees. A concern exists that senders whose messages are more likely to be considered spam who would accrue a greater benefit by using such a tag. The concern is that these factors form a perverse incentive for licensing organizations to be lenient with licensees who have offended. However, the value of a license would drop if it was not strictly enforced, and financial gains due to enforcement of a license itself can providee an additional incentive for strict enforcement. The Habeas mail classing system attempts to further address this issue this by classing email according to origin, purpose, and permission. The purpose is to describe why the email is not likely spam, but permission based email.

Ham passwords

Another approach for countering spam is to use a “ham password”. Systems that use ham passwords ask unrecognised senders to include in their email a password that demonstrates that the email message is a “ham” (not spam) message. Typically the email address and ham password would be described on a web page, and the ham password would be included in the “subject” line of an email address. Ham passwords are often combined with filtering systems, to counter the risk that a filtering system will accidentally identify a ham message as a spam message.

The “plus addressing” technique appends a password to the “username” part of the email address.

Cost-based systems

Since spam occurs primarily because it is so cheap to send, a proposed set of solutions require that senders pay some cost in order to send spam, making it uneconomic.

Stamps

Some gatekeeper such as Microsoft would sell electronic stamps, and keep the proceeds. Or a Micropayment, such as Electronic money would be paid by the sender to the recipient or their ISP, or some other gatekeeper.

Hashcash

Hashcash and similar systems require that a sender pay a computational cost by performing a calculation that the receiver can later verify. Verification must be much faster than performing the calculation, so that the computation slows down a sender but does not significantly impact a receiver. The point is to slow down machines that send most of spam — often millions and millions of them. While every user that wants to send email to a moderate number of recipients suffers just a seconds’ delay, sending millions of emails would take an unaffordable amount of time.

Bonds

As a refinement to stamp systems was the idea of requiring that the micropayment only be retained if the recipient considered the email to be abusive. This addressed the principal objection to stamp systems: popular free legitimate mailing list hosts would be unable to continue to provide their services if they had to pay postage for every message they sent out.

Issues

A difficulty that must be dealt with by most anti-spam methods, including DNSBLs, Authentication and Reputation (A&R), Sender-supported whitelists and tags, Ham passwords, cost-based systems, Heuristic filtering, and Challenge/response systems is that spammers already (illegally) use other people’s computers to send spam. The computers in question are already infected with viruses and spyware operated by the spam senders, in some cases seriously damaging the computer’s responsiveness to the legitimate user. Spam from the legitimate user’s computer can be sent using the user’s and/or system’s identity, list of correspondents, reputation, credentials, stamps, hashcash and/or bonds. The added motivation to steal from such systems in order to abuse these things may simply impel spammers to infect more computers and cause greater damage. On the other hand, this could compel computer users to finally secure their systems, reducing Botnets, which would have myriad other benefits, as they are used for extortion, phishing, and terorrism, as well as spam. Ultimately, any system that holds senders responsible for the mail they send needs to deal with the situation of irresponsible senders that may send both spam and ham.

Heuristic filtering

Heuristic filtering, such as is implemented in the program SpamAssassin, uses some or all of the various tests for spam mentioned above, and assigns a numerical score to each test. Each message is scanned for these patterns, and the applicable scores tallied up. If the total is above a fixed value, the message is rejected or flagged as spam. By ensuring that no single spam test by itself can flag a message as spam, the false positive rate can be greatly reduced. [3]

Tarpits and Honeypots

A tarpit is any server software which intentionally responds pathologically slowly to client commands. A honeypot is a server which attempts to attract attacks. Some mail administrators operate tarpits to impede spammers’ attempts at sending messages, and honeypots to detect the activity of spammers. By running a tarpit which appears to be an open mail relay, or which treats acceptable mail normally and known spam slowly, a site can slow down the rate at which spammers can inject messages into the mail facility.

One tarpit design is the teergrube, whose name is simply German for “tarpit.” This is an ordinary SMTP server which intentionally responds very slowly to commands. Such a system will bog down SMTP client software, as further commands cannot be sent until the server acknowledges the earlier ones. Several SMTP MTAs, including Postfix and Exim, have a teergrube capacity built-in: when confronted with a client session which causes errors such as spam rejections, they will slow down their responding [4]. A similar approach is taken by TarProxy.

Another design for tarpits directly controls the TCP/IP protocol stack, holding the spammer’s network socket open without allowing any traffic over it. By reducing the TCP window size to zero, but continuing to acknowledge packets, the spammer’s process may be tied up indefinitely. This design is more difficult to implement than the former. Aside from anti-spam purposes, it has also been used to absorb attacks from network worms. [5]

As of late 2005 much of the spam sent is through so-called “zombie” systems, of which there are potentially a very large number. This makes the actual effectiveness of tarpits questionable, as there are so many spam sources that slowing just a few has little real effect on the volume of spam received.

Another approach is simply an imitation MTA (open relay honeypot) which gives the appearance of being an open mail relay. Spammers who probe systems for open relay will find such a host and attempt to send mail through it, wasting their time and potentially revealing information about themselves and the source of spam to the unexpected alert entity (in comparison to the anticipated careless or unskilled operator typically in charge of open relay MTA systems) that operates the honeypot. Such a system may simply discard the spam attempts, submit them to DNSBLs, or store them for analysis. It may be possible to examine or analyze the intercepted spam to find information that allows other countermeasures. (One honeypot operator was able to alert a freemail supplier to a large number of accounts that had been created as dropboxes for the receipt of responses to spam. Disabling these dropbox email accounts made the entire spam run, including the spam messages relayed through actual open relays, useless to the spammer: he could not receive any of the responses to the spam sent by gullible customers.) The SMTP honeypot may also selectively deliver relay test messages to give a stronger appearance of open relay (though care is needed here as this means the honeypot itself and the network it is on could end up on spam blacklists). SMTP honeypots of this sort have been suggested as a way that end-users can interfere with spammers’ activities (code: Java [6], Python [7]).

As of late 2005 open relay abuse to send spam has greatly declined, resulting in a lowered active effectiveness of open relay honeypots. (Passively, the honeypots or threat of same create an inducement for spammers to not abuse open relays.) Other types of honeypot (below) may still have great effectiveness.

Spammers also abuse open proxies, and open proxy honeypots (proxypots) have had substantial success. Ron Guillmette reported in 2003 that he succeeded in getting over 100 spammer accounts terminated in under 3 months, using his network (of unspecified size) of proxypots. At that time spammers were so careless that they sent spam directly from their servers to the abused open proxy, making determination of the identity of the spammer’s IP address trivial so that it was easy to report the spammer to the ISP in control of that IP address and easy for that ISP to terminate the spammer’s account.

Unlike most other anti-spam techniques tarpits and honeypots work at the relay, proxy, or zombie (collectively, “abuse”) level. They work by targeting spammer behavior rather than targeting spam content. One beneficial fallout from this is that these tools are not required to have any means of distinguishing spam from non-spam. Because they capture spam at the abuse level they are not part of any legitimate email pathway and it can be confidently assumed that what they capture is 100% spam or spam-related (e.g., test messages.) Anti-spam measures at (or after) the destination server level protect specific email addresses but must include code to distinguish spam from non-spam. Anti-spam measures at the abuse level protect whatever the email addresses are that are being targeted by the spam directed through them and are hence non-specific but need no code to distinguish spam from non-spam. The main purpose of abuse-level tools is targeting spam and spammers themselves while the main purpose of server-level tools is to protect speecific email addresses. What abuse-level tools lose in specificity may be more than made up by the inherent simplicity that results from not having to be able to separate valid email from invalid email.

In late 2005 Microsoft announced that it had converted an actual zombie system to a zombie honeypot. One result of this was a lawsuit by Microsoft against about 20 defendants, based on evidence collected by the zombie honeypot.

Note that there is some terminological confusion. Some people refer to “spamtraps” as “honeypots.” In this context a “spamtrap” is an email address created specifically to attract spam. These run at the destination level rather than at the relay, proxy or “spam zombie” level.

Challenge/response systems

Another method which may be used by internet service providers (or by specialized services) to combat spam is to require unknown senders to pass various tests before their messages are delivered. These strategies are termed challenge/response systems or C/R, are currently controversial among email programmers and system administrators.

For a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these systems.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Because the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 authorizes an USD 11,000 penalty per violation for spamming each individual recipient, many commercial e-mail marketers within the United States utilize a service or special software that helps ensure compliance with the Act. A variety of older systems exist which do not ensure compliance with the Act. To comply with the Act’s regulation of commercial e-mail, services typically: require users to authenticate their return address and include a valid physical address, provide a one-click unsubscribe feature, and prohibit importing lists of purchased addresses which may not have given valid permission.

In addition to satisfying legal requirements, services such as ConstantContact help customers to set up and manage their own e-mail marketing campaigns. The services provide e-mail templates, automatically handle subscriptions and removals, and generate statistics on how many messages were received and openned, and whether the recipients clicked on any links within the messages.

This guide is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Need an webmaster? Click HERE

The great majority of telemarketing presentations are legitimate calls from companies that offer valuable services. Unfortunately, telemarketing has also been negatively associated with various scams or frauds like multilevel marketing, pyramid schemes or with fraudulently overpriced products or services.

The prospective customers are identified and qualified by various means, including past purchase histories, previous requests for information, credit limit, competition entry forms or application forms. Names may also be purchased from another company’s customer database, or obtained from a telephone directory or some other public list or forum. The qualification process is intended to find those prospective customers most likely to purchase the product or service being sold or advertised. Charitable organizations, alumni associations and political parties often use telemarketing to solicit donations.

Market survey companies often use telemarketing techniques to survey prospective or past customers of a client business to assess market acceptance or satisfaction with a particular product, service, brand or company. Public opinion polls are conducted in a similar manner.

Telemarketing techniques can also be applied to other forms of electronic marketing using e-mail or fax messages.

Telemarketing is often criticized as being an unethical business practice as some companies make unsolicited calls, using high-pressure sales techniques. Such practices may be subject to regulatory or legislative controls related to consumer privacy and protection. In particular, telemarking in the U.S. is restricted at a federal level by the FCC’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. Many professional associations of telemarketers do have codes of ethics and standards that member businesses follow to win public confidence.

Do Not Call Listings

Some jurisdictions have implemented “Do Not Call” listings, either through industry organizations or legislation, in which consumers can indicate that they do not wish to be called by telemarketers. Legislative versions often provide for heavy penalties for companies calling individuals on these listings. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has now implemented a National Do Not Call Registry in an attempt to reduce intrusive telemarketing on a national basis. Although challenged by telemarketing corporations and trade groups as a violation of commercial speech rights, the National Do Not Call Registry was upheld by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on February 17, 2004.

Avoiding Telemarketing Calls

There are several methods that people use to avoid telemarketing calls. Using caller ID or a privacy manager can allow the targeted subscriber to identify the caller before the call is answered and make the decision not to answer. Answering machines and voicemail can also be used to screen calls, as telemarketers generally do not leave messages. A device called the Telezapper foils telemarketing calls by issuing a tone which causes the autodialer at the call center to log the number as out of service.

This guide is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Video: How to Piss off a Telemarketer

Billboards and street advertising in Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan, (2005)

Generally speaking, advertising is the promotion of goods, services, companies and ideas, usually by an identified sponsor. Marketers see advertising as part of an overall promotional strategy. Other components of the promotional mix include publicity, public relations, personal selling and sales promotion.

Online advertising is advertising on the Internet. This particular form of advertising is a source of revenue for an increasing number of websites and companies.

There are two sides to online advertising, a legitimate one and an illegitimate one. The legitimate side of online advertising includes search engine advertising, advertising networks and opt-in e-mail advertising. The illegitimate side is dominated by spamming.

Though the range of advertising options has expanded since in the commercialization of the Internet, the use of rich media and static images is extremely popular. The ever-increasing audience of online users will likely continue to be a major advertising market.

This guide is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.