Subject: [Asrg] What are your criteria for the end of spam?

From: "Shannon Jacobs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 07:02:43 +0900

> If you know of an anti-spam email system that will block any advertising
> UNLESS the advertisers pay MY price for MY time, then please tell me about
> it. I'll sign up and consider my spam problem solved.

That appeared in the ASRG a few days ago, and though the economic aspects
have been receiving more serious consideration recently, that particular
comment didn't get much consideration, but the more I think about it, the
more it "strikes a chord" in my thinking. I hope that most of us are willing
to agree that advertising is a legitimate business activity. The advertisers
are going to look for any channel that will effectively reach potential
customers, but there is a problematic tradeoff involved here. Some points
for consideration:

1) We want to be informed of the best values.
2) We don't want to give up our privacy.
3) Companies compete to create the best values.
4) Email could help customers find the best values.

Number 4) seems to be a theoretical point, but right now you have to admit
that broadcast advertising is a very inefficient advertising mechanism. At
any given time, I'm really only interested in purchasing a few things, and
right now finding the best value is a very tedious process. It is quite
possible that I will see a broadcast ad for just what I want at the best
price available. Yet given the essentially random nature of a broadcast ad,
how would I know that was the one? Actually, I'd kind of like to receive
specific and detailed email from each of the companies with good candidates,
explaining exactly why their product and their price was the best match for
my real needs.

Then again, a lot of advertising is intended to create needs where none
exist, and I definitely do NOT want to receive that advertising. Hmmm...

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

---

From: "David Cheatham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 23:00:30 -0400

>explaining exactly why their product and their price was the best match
for

I have to suggest the best medium for that is the web, not email. With the 
web, advertisers can have a secure payment system in place (Although most 
payment systems are designed in reverse with browsers paying websites, it 
wouldn't be hard for them to operate backwards.), make sure someone
actually 
viewed the ad instead of software auto-deleting it (Or at least, be _more_ 
sure of it, with Turing tests and quizzes about the ads.), and offer lists
of 
the ads and how much they are willing to pay, instead of sending out ads
that
are deleted because the recipient isn't willing to view an ad for that
amount.

In short, this entire 'pay people to look at ads' works a lot better over
the 
web than over email, and it already works over the web with no protocol 
changes, and it's not worth trying to figure out how to make it work over 
email. Pull is the correct model for that, not push.

And it's not worth worrying any such hypothetical system about when
researching
spam, because the whole idea isn't very useful.

This doesn't stop such hypothetical ad companies from setting up a 
mailing list for their own customers to alert them of new ads. Using all
the 
various precautions and standards for operating a mailing list, of course.

---

From: Rodney Tillotson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:46:22 +0100

> 4) Email could help customers find the best values.

If (1,4) _I_ want to be informed, _I_ go and do something about
it. I opt IN to a few things (even the ASRG list ...). I don't
want to be informed of stuff on the basis of someone else's
values.

The things over which companies compete (3) are a set of things
different in principle from those which consumers think are of
value. The sets have some members in common but the utility
functions are different.
Bluntly, commercial concerns are there to make money; some will
do it by helping you, but it's not their primary concern.

There is a danger of believing that U<C>E is the problem; it's
UBE (2) whether C or not, that I want to deal with.

It's possible that the key issue is how to deal with U -- e-mail
you were not expecting -- so that recipients feel they remain in
control.
That will be my criterion for the beginning of the end.

And working it through, some technology gives recipients some
self-determination in some environments. Legislation probably
transfers control away from recipients. I only expect to see the
beginning of the end when Internet businesses establish sensible
relationships among themselves and with their customers. I want to
be able to buy a mail service that works to my specification, which
my provider has set up with other providers. No path from anywhere
with pink contracts or other inadequate policies, and it's up to
my ISP to assure me of that.

Yes, this fragments the mail community; or it would, if that
community was not already ripped apart
('divided by a common protocol'?[1]).

Rodney Tillotson, JANET-CERT
+44 1235 822 255.

[1] Apologies to George Bernard Shaw and others.