Subject: RE: [Asrg] News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:08:01 -0400

Kee Hinckley wrote:
> If they wanted to keep the stuff from being blocked, 
> they should have thought of talking to the spam filter 
> companies a bit earlier than the day before.
	This just isn't right. The FTC mails were not spam and they
should not have been blocked. The burden for ensuring that non-spam
messages pass through the email system should be on those who block
messages, not on those who send them.

		bob wyman

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:15:25 -0400

>messages, not on those who send them.

In an ideal world, yes.  But if it were an ideal world, we wouldn't 
be here.  So they should have taken that into account.  *Especially* 
when you know you are going to be sending high-volume, substantially 
similar, mis-formatted email messages.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:48:17 -0400

It has been suggested that folk like the FTC should "talk with spam
filtering companies" prior to sending out large quantities of mail --
even if that mail is unquestionably "non-spam." This is easy to say.
However, it isn't obvious to me who these "spam filter companies" are.
If I was going to send out a few hundred thousand legitimate messages
sometime next week, who would I warn? How would I contact them?
	It seems to me that if we have a system that relies on people
talking with each other, then we need to put in place some mechanism so
that they can find each other to begin the discussions. 
	* Should we have a mailing list to which people can send notices
of "intent to send" large quantities of mail?
	* If you are warning someone, what form should the warning take?
Should it include a sample message? Should it include the headers that
you will be sending? Should it include information on the number of
messages that you'll send? How about providing information concerning
the time of day that the message will be sent?
	* Is there a place for standards on how such warnings should be
issued? If so, who should draft and promulgate such a standard?
	* Should there be third-party "judges" established that will
have the time, patience and skills to determine whether planned email
blasts are legitimate? If so, who should these judges be?

		bob wyman

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:39:15 -0400

>blasts are legitimate? If so, who should these judges be?

One of the anti-spam sites should probably do that or perhaps the Network 
Abuse Clearing House. Another idea is that a site like 
(http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/) that maintains a whitelist of 
ISPS that might be sending large amounts of mail but are not spam. Or 
perhaps its time to create a new central anti-spam site with this info. I 
have been advocating before that we should think about creating a site on 
Email Standards similar to the Web Standards Project 
(www.webstandards.org). This may be something fit for such project.

Yakov

---

From: "C. Wegrzyn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:03:43 -0400

I doubt any kind of legislative action will work. It is too easy to get 
a provider "off shore" and spam from that provider. I also don't believe 
for a moment that clearinghouses will work well for a number of reasons. 
It is just too easy and cheap for me (metaphorically speaking) to move 
from one service provider to another.

In my mind there are two solutions for the problem. One is to get away 
from flat rate pricing or make it expensive - you need to change the 
economics of sending out 1,000,000 emails. The other is to solve the 
problem at the terminus of the email.

FWIW,
Chuck Wegrzyn

 In my mind the only solution for this problem is to handle it at 
terminus of the email connection.

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

> One of the anti-spam sites should probably do that or perhaps the 
> Network Abuse Clearing House. Another idea is that a site like 
> (http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/) that maintains a whitelist 
> of ISPS that might be sending large amounts of mail but are not spam. 
> Or perhaps its time to create a new central anti-spam site with this 
> info. I have been advocating before that we should think about 
> creating a site on Email Standards similar to the Web Standards 
> Project (www.webstandards.org). This may be something fit for such 
> project.
>
> Yakov
>

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:13:55 -0400

> sometime next week, who would I warn? How would I contact them?

Offer money and they'll volunteer themselves.

This is where it's going, like it or not, people can't do all this
work (like vetting and whitelisting self-proclaimed do-gooders.)

Not clear exactly what self-proclaimed do-gooders should get for
free.

It's changing, things are changing.

Of course, feel free to do whatever amount of work in this regard you
feel compelled to do, just don't assume everyone is interested in
having their workload cranked up arbitrarily just because someone
wants a free ride (even if that free ride is "reliability" rather than
mere hit or miss delivery.)

 > that they can find each other to begin the discussions. 

Money works.

 > blasts are legitimate? If so, who should these judges be?

Yeah there ya go, armchair generals...

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:20:57 -0400

On July 2, 2003 at 08:03 [email-masked] (C. Wegrzyn) wrote:
 > a provider "off shore" and spam from that provider.

Whatever else your objections this canard comes up frequently so is
probably worthwhile knocking down again:

1. Spam is not the first crime in history with an international
component.

2. If the purpose of spam is to sell something then the spammer or
their client has a business nexus within the country being spammed,
with a few exceptions (stock pumping or selling vacation homes in the
foreign country or whatever, hardly an objection tho.)

3. If they have a business nexus in the target country then that can
be subjected to legal means.

4. Believe it or not other countries are capable of passing decent
laws, one has to have some faith that if someone leads others will
follow and pass their own anti-spam laws and enforce them in response
to complaints.

Few govts have any real interest in letting spammers roam free as much
as they may just be a little slow to act.

5. Countries which are determined to be rogue can be dealt with on a
case by case basis (e.g., blocked/filtered heavily/other trade
sanctions, etc.)

-- 
        -Barry Shein

---

From: "C. Wegrzyn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:56 -0400

Yes Barry I know all the arguments about why it can be legislated. The 
problem is that there is a very strong economic reason for it not to 
happen.

Chuck Wegrzyn

---

From: Bruce Stephens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:08:34 +0100

Barry Shein <[email-masked]> writes:

[...]

> with a few exceptions (stock pumping or selling vacation homes in
> the foreign country or whatever, hardly an objection tho.)

If only!  My isode.com address doesn't scream out my country of
residence, but I regularly receive spam to my .demon.co.uk home
address which is obviously not intended for people outside the US.
(Sometimes it even says that the "offer" doesn't apply outside the
US.)  Spammers really don't seem to discriminate that much according
to country.

And you omitted various electronic products, specifically porn web
sites for which spam isn't unusual.

[...]

> follow and pass their own anti-spam laws and enforce them in
> response to complaints.
>
> Few govts have any real interest in letting spammers roam free as
> much as they may just be a little slow to act.

Very true.  If the US passes effective legislation, it's likely that
EU countries will pass similarly effective legislation, if not more
effective.

[...]

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:54:36 -0400

> address which is obviously not intended for people outside the US.

<START UNCALLED-FOR JINGOISTIC HOLIDAY COMMENT>

  Well, that's because you live in a marginalized little island nation
  that didn't even have the good sense to relent on a few bucks in taxes
  and hang onto a nation which relatively quickly became as great as all
  Europe combined.

<END UNCALLED-FOR JINGOISTIC HOLIDAY COMMENT>

(Happy 4th of July! But we don't have a 4th of July here! ... No? You
go straight from the 3rd to the 5th??? Interesting!!!)

-- 
        -Barry Shein

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:46:06 +0100

> <END UNCALLED-FOR JINGOISTIC HOLIDAY COMMENT>

Note for non-US readers:
Every year at about this time, they take a day off to celebrate replacing
one set of bosses with another set. This is what they call freedom.
Meanwhile, the combine destroys the lives of millions and squanders the
inheritance which rightly belongs to their children.

Only joking.

--