Subject: Re: [Asrg] Where I think we are...

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:03:44 +0000

Barry Shein wrote:
> 
> The very concept of the internet has been seriously compromised.
> 
> This is why the spammers are effecting a sea change in the operation
> of the internet, ending for example end-to-end services such as being
> able to deliver your own email w/o use of an intermediary "official"
> server (aka port 25 blocking.)
> 

[snip...]
 
> Put another way, it's not the spam which is a problem, it's what makes
> it impossible to stop, short of abandoning fundamental assumptions
> about the medium, which is the problem.
> 
> 

Barry, I think you make a very good point. It may be that the end-to-end
arguments have been over-applied. I know that this is a quasi-religious
matter for some of us, but I don't believe that many accept that "Just
Deliver the Bits" would be an acceptable basis for *application* behaviour
in "today's internet".

We're seeing more decision-making (throttling, DNSBL, content-filtering
etc) deployed in the email infrastructure.
We see an increasing trend to closed mail systems. 
I can't see any possibility of a less hindered end-to-end mail transport
system that doesn't include an end-to-end consent (or permission)
component. This seems to have been side-lined (as a "hard problem"),
leaving us using a less reliable MTS, with which it may be more difficult
to build a consent-component than otherwise.
  
Where do we go from here? Does it matter?

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

---

From: William Chang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:59:21 -0800 (PST)

Barry Shein writes eloquently of our problem:

> Unfortunately, we still don't really have very good or generally
> accepted definitions of the problem we are trying to
> solve. Consequently, there's no good critical framework within which
> to judge whether some proposal makes progress. If you don't know where
> you're going it's hard to tell if you're getting closer.

I have been following this list -- but Barry's message struck a chord.
When I attended a couple of recent anti-spam conferences, and sought out
the lawyers who spoke about legal or legislative solutions, I got the
feeling that they had no effective working definition either.

So, I'll try to define the problem, for purpose of discussion:

    Stop only those messages sent with the intent to escape 
    accountability for their total costs.  -- William Chang

    (John Levine has kindly informed me: "... the charter of the ASRG 
    explicitly excludes attempts to come up with a definition of spam.
    Note that defining the problem is not at all the same thing as 
    defining spam." 12/17/2004)

This statement leaves out "content" -- which is my point.  If the sender
takes responsibility for the message, then there _are_ legal, business,
personal, as well as technical remedies to stop such acts in the future.
If I forwarded an "ad" to a friend ("hey look at this") my message should
get through.  Whereas, a "good", non-commercial message (Peace on Earth!),
if it is sent indiscriminantly or anonymously, needs to be stopped.

Unfortunately, our protocols and infrastructure are inadequate for
enforcing accountability.  In particular, email standards (SMTP, POP3,
etc.) are entrenched and rigid, while applications (including spamming)
evolve at an incredible rate.  The "Inter-Net" has lost its (original)
ability to adapt and to inter-connect disparate networks and protocols.
These are not the only problems (we wish they were), but they are basic.

Disclosure: I am the founder of a company with a novel anti-spam solution,
one that is patent pending.  I am not here to discuss our invention at
this time, but rather to participate in the on-going group discussion,
at a high level.  Privately, I would be happy to discuss my company and
to meet anyone from this list.

William I. Chang, PhD
President, Affini Inc
Saratoga, CA
[email-masked]
[email-masked] (filtered)