Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity -- scaling, adoption, diversity and scenarios

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:23:35 -0600

>From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity -- scaling, adoption, diversity 
>and scenarios Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:32:09 -0400
>
>"John Fenley" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > C/R can mess with mailing lists.
> >       I proposed a system to fix that problem. I recieved no 
>constructive
> > criticism, and when I proposed government funding that became the issue 
>not
> > wether or not it could work.
>
>   Uh, no.  You proposed government *control*.  "Government funding"
>means you get a research grant to implement a system that everyone can
>use.

I kindly point you to my mention of government involvement which sparked the 
whole afair. There is no mention of control, just funding.

https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg03371.html

> > The main advantage I see to C/R is that it does not require any 
>technical
> > knowlege, and it can prevent a new user from ever seing a single spam 
>thus
> > disrupting its propegation.
>
>   The main disadvantage is that I'm not going to talk to someone using
>a C/R system, because it means increasing *my* workload, to lower
>*their* spam problem.  This is fundamentally evil, in my opinion.

So don't talk to them. The point is that C/R stops people who dont want to 
talk to the reciever. You don't care, therfore C/R works. If you had any 
sort of desire to speak to the person, you would answer the challenge and be 
done with it.

> > Filters of any sort, on the other hand, require user input and must be
> > constantly trained as spammers evolve. Users will only do this after 
>they
> > see spam as a problem, this is probly after they bought their *free* 
>viagra.
>
>   There are spamtraps, which receive *nothing* but spam.  Many filter
>systems use spamtraps as an automated source of spam.

I am trying to keep this out of the "expert user" realm.
I am trying to propose a system that a novice user can step into, and not 
get spam.

> > A 1% increase in overall productivity could mean the difference
> > between a good economy, and a bad one.
>
>   That's nice.

Mock me if you must, but a small increase can have a huge effect when that 
small increase is widely distributed.

John Fenley

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:06:08 -0400

> sort of desire to speak to the person, you would answer the challenge and be 

  I'm afraid you're missing my point entirely.  I refuse to answer the
challenge, not because it's too much work, but because they're
nonsense.  I refuse to go out of my way to jump through *your* hoops,
just because I have a passing desire to speak with you.

  Imagine visiting a friend, and discovering they have a doorman.  The
doorman won't let you in, until you show photo ID, answer a few
questions, and maybe give him a tip.  With such a system, you'll
discover that you'll lose most of your friends.  The only people
willing to deal with such a system will be close relatives asking you
for money, or bill collectors.

  I think I'll implement an automated response to C/R systems, saying
"Thank you for sending me the challenge.  I will respond if you make
it worth my while.  I expect it to take an hour (hey, I'm dumb), and I
charge $1000 per hour consultancy rates.  Please forward funds to
<address>, and I will respond to your challenge"

  That's a great idea!  I've just implemented my own C/R system, in
response to other peoples C/R systems.  What's wrong with that?  You
couldn't possibly have any reason to be negative about my system...

> small increase is widely distributed.

  <shrug> You seem to have a one-country-centric viewpoint.  That's
all I was commenting on.

  Some countries will see *no* net effect from spam fighting systems,
because they have almost zero internet usage.  "The economy" they have
is currently doing fine, and doesn't need any boost.

  Alan DeKok.