Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo decides to send spam

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:39:57 -0800

So much for Yahoo being an aly in the figtht against spam. This morning I
received a message from them which includes the following passages:

"Over the years, we've sent emails to some registered Yahoo! members about
Yahoo! products and services. We've also delivered promotional messages to
Yahoo! members on behalf of our marketing partners. When you first
registered with us and created your Yahoo! ID, our system presented a single
"Yes" or "No" option for receiving all types of marketing communications. At
some point you said "No," and after that we no longer sent any of these
types of messages to you.

In March 2002, we began rolling out an updated marketing communications
system. Instead of just a single "Yes" or "No" choice, we created a new
Marketing Preferences page where you decide:

...

When this updated system was first announced in March 2002, we told you we'd
begin sending you messages about Yahoo! products and services across all
categories, even though you had said "No" to messages under the old single
choice system. We also told you that you could still say "No" to these
messages by visiting your Marketing Preferences. "

In other words, we know that you opted NOT to receive marketting messages
from us, we collected the data from you under that express understanding, we
now believe that we have the right to unilaterally change the terms of that
contract and in fact send spam to you even though you explicitly told us NOT
to send it.

I take the checkoff box to mean that my email address is not going to be
abused if I select the 'don't spam me' option. The fact these people have
taken from March 2002 until now to send this second note shows that they
know themselves that their actions are dishonest.

In this particular case I have no idea at all what the account in question
would be. I tend to use yahoo accounts disposably.

		Phill

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

---

From: "Sandeep Krishnamurthy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:37:00 -0800

Hi!

Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey
about Spam.  The survey is at-

https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66

[If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4]

Thanks.

Best,
Sandeep

Home Page: http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep
Read my publications at-
http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/publist3.htm

---

From: "Steven G. Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:59:42 +0000

>[If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4]

Questions 7 amd 8 on this survey seem to not have all of the possible answers... Looks specifically for an answer of "Definitely Not Spam" on these two questions and you will see that they are not available properly.

It would probably be best to toss out any data you have in this survey until you correct this problem.

Once corrected, please repost to the list and we can all then take part.

Cheers!

================================================================
Steven G. Willis     [email-masked]       772.794.9494
Deep Sky Technologies, Inc.          http://www.deepskytech.com/
http://www.badchickens.com/         http://www.store-secure.com/
AIM-iChat: dstisgwillis
================================================================
A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
================================================================

---

From: "Sandeep Krishnamurthy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:03:35 -0800

Friends,

The astute members of this list immediately pointed out a bug in this
survey.  I take full ownership of these errors.  I have gone ahead and
deleted the results from the survey to avoid using contaminated data.

Please take a few minutes to complete the survey about Spam.  The survey is
at-

Others have asked me if I will share the results.  I plan to write a paper
that will use the results from this.  I will be happy to share the paper
with the group.

Thanks.

Best,
Sandeep

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:48:59 -0500

[Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod]

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:56:00 -0500

> >https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66

Hmm.

I started on it, but too many questions include "you do not remember".
It doesn't really matter what I remember, it matters what I actually
did..

So I personally would mark all those as inconclusive, but since I bet
that's not what you want, I just backed out.

mm

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:05:25 -0500

This brings to light an interesting question. Lets assume that you had a
business transaction with someone but had explicitly denied consent for
spam. And now the company goes ahead and changes your consent decision
like Yahoo did below. Does having a business relationship with Yahoo
implies implicit consent?

Yakov

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:37:42 +0000

> implies implicit consent?
The sender CAN NOT change MY consent decision. They can choose to ignore
it, as here.
Surely implicit consent can only be assumed in the absence of any explicit
consent expression. There's also the question of what matters such implied
consent might apply to.
For me, consent couldn't be implied in these circumstances. But of course
this is just spam definition in other terms and probably off topic.

PHB clearly isn't consenting to this communication from Yahoo. That's what
counts.

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:22:09 -0700

Hi Sandeep,

I truly appreciate your personal effort within the ASWG and the ASWG at large.

Sorry about all the verbage in advance, hopefully some will find my 
contemplations worthwhile reading; <- this is my theme.

I have been lurking on the IETF ASWG list for a while now.  I completed your 
survey @ https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?
owner=sandeep&id=66 
.  Just some thoughts for future survey enhancements and future discussion on 
the ASWG board.

WRT your survey, Concent is ALL important; no "if", "and", ior "but".  My 
opinion cannot be swayed on this matter.  However, with concent, is a 
difficult expectation that the content of [0|1|2|#|only the next 
#|some|most|all|general 3rd party|this particular 3rd party|did I miss any?
(literally|figurately)|time dependant combinations of fore-mentioned] future 
communications will be well received.

                              ?????

This, IMHO, is one of three fatal flaws in the whole SMTP communications 
model, that most seem to have to live with after volenteering an email 
address; quite a lot for the simple "submit" function to assume.  More 
importantly, it is this communications model several recognize erroneous and 
therefore exploitable.

The unfortunate problem becomes one of, if a recepient receives content, at 
any time, which is not as expected, the original mis-understood concentual 
expectation, finally becomes recognizably compromised BY THE RECIPIENT ONLY.  
With compromised trust in communication, the "unsubscribe" function becomes 
equally questionable.

Both a sender and recepient's wants & needs change with time.  It is not 
reasonable to expect sender & recepients wants and needs to always necessary 
stay well alined; if those wants and needs were ever aligned?  To make things 
worse, automated senders have no reason to care if alignment is not achieved 
with this mailout, for this particular [solicited|unsolicited] address; 
because "they" take a stake in the feedom the possession of an email address 
MIGHT afford, hoping the next message will entise, the next time, ad 
infinium.  There is nothing to lose, because the system is fundamently broken 
in "their" favor.

2nd fatal flaw.  Isn't SMTP a form of TCP/IP?  It seems to me, the problem has 
become one of SMTP exhibiting better characteristics of UDP.  Going back to 
the stone-age, when someone says "UHGG! Enuf!" or just walks away, true 
communications cease thereafter.  TCP/IP SMTP acknowledges at a system 
level, "ACK, ya I got the message".  Is this consent enough that this 
communication and future communications are acceptable?  Challenge Response, 
fundamentally has the right idea.  Problems are: the sender really has NO 
motivation to stop communicating to a known entity, only to find better 
methods by which to continue to appeal/harrass until the objective of the 
communications are achieved, all the while leaving the burden of continuing to 
walk away with the recipient, with very limited legal recourse.

In my mind, it would be great, if I could just respond to a message I well 
received with, "thanx! That stuff you said about Blah was GREAT! Tell me 
more.",  This sets an expectation that future communications are potentially 
equally well received.

For lack of full message response, or communications to the effect of "UHGG! 
Enuf", I hold, further messages need necessary cease there after, for this 
particular content, IP, sender, sender's company or ????.  Very very thick 
trouble.  Too sadly, some senders receiving feedback/or no feedback to the 
effect of [thanx|enuf|subscribe|unsubscribe|blah|*], use this as an 
opportunity to pro-actively re-tune the next message ad-infinium; welcome to 
inbox clutter.  Thanx, but no thanx.

Please don't try to read my mind for me about what I need to see in my inbox 
next; If I let you know, I will let you know.

3rd fault or 12 ish.  World Economics, Politics, & Law in the New Geo-Spanning 
Cyber-Fontier.  Not enough cowboys, virtual bullets, virtual jurisdiction, 
super fast & smart horses, too many "public?" posts to nail the next message 
to, too many fly-by-night cyber-saloons and peasant-educated shoddy-built-pig-
barns to hide masked villians in/behind.  This needs to change.  I wish I had 
a simple answer for this one. sigh :(

Though their are a number of able-bodied groups finally meeting in their town 
halls and schools with pitch forks and stones in arms, crafting new devices.  
This is a very important start! :)

Todd.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:57:40 -0500

[Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.]