Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Asr?g] Legal side track

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:51:30 -0600

>From: Anonymous
>To: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Asr?g] Legal side track
>
>At 1:52 PM -0600 on 4/14/03, you wrote:
>>If I went to your inbox, and took some messages out you would be mad, 
>>right? That is what I am against. Nobody should be able to say "they won't 
>>want that, yoink, they'll never even know it was here", unless I ASK them 
>>to do that.
>
>If that's what you believe, why are you using hotmail?  They do that.

I choose to use hotmail.

>
>>I don't think sending address has any value as a spam indicator.
>>and isp's can't decide what spam is anyway. only the recipient can do 
>>that.
>
>I'm not a fan of blacklists.  However this is demonstrably not true. ISPs 
>can and do successfully block billions of messages on a daily basis.  
>Virtually all of that is definitely spam.
>

Perhaps

>>I said "third party interference"
>>someone in the middle should not be allowed to block mail. Once the mail 
>>is sent, it must be protected and delivered regardless of origin or 
>>content.
>
>So, you don't want to block spam after it is sent.
>

Not untill it gets to the recipient, and whatever solution they have chosen 
deals with it.

>>Blacklisting is an inferior "solution" altogether. It is only effective 
>>after spam has been sent, and it could block legitimate mail.
>
>But you don't think a solution that blocks spam after it is sent is a good 
>one.
>

see above response

>>Also, why can't a Mail User Agent notify senders?
>
>Have you not been reading the list?  All those messages about "a message 
>rejection should happen early in the process"?  Everyone agreeing that 
>whenever possible the MTA should reject the message in the SMTP process, 
>rather than sending an out-of-band bounce message which may or may not go 
>to the write place and have the right information?

I don't think message rejection should happen untill the end user's 
decisions enter into the equasion. Just because everyone agrees, doesn't 
mean everyone is right.
Every sender (especially a spammer) should be notified if their message does 
not go through.

>>Perhaps my idea started as the same old challenge/response but over the 
>>past week it has evolved into something I feel is much better, that is 
>>what research does to ideas. Reasearchers look at the real problem, not 
>>the symptoms. Reasearchers examine their ideas from all sides, and 
>>researchers try to understand ideas before they shoot them down. If a 
>>Reasearcher sees a problem, they examine why it is a problem, and then try 
>>to solve it. Researchers do not let personal biases against ideas 
>>influence them unless they have a valid reason. Also a researcher does not 
>>"beat a dead horse" unless they realy think there is something that has 
>>been missed. A good researcher can change how they feel about an idea 
>>based on its merit as an idea, their loyalty is to the solution, not a 
>>solution.
>
>Quite.

I'm glad you agree.

>
>>a reasearchers response to "blacklists don't stop spam untill after they 
>>are sent." would not be to restate the importance of blacklists. It would 
>>be one of these:
>
>How are you planning to stop spam before it is sent?

By creating a free end-user solution that is so robust and widely adopted 
that bulk email is no longer an economical advertising vector.

John Fenley

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:13:29 -0400

On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 09:51:30PM -0600, John Fenley wrote

> decisions enter into the equasion. Just because everyone agrees, doesn't 

  If the user is not a geek, and signs on to an ISP that advertises spam
blocking, isn't that enough of a decision ?

> Every sender (especially a spammer) should be notified if their
> message does not go through.

  I don't know if you live in the same ivory tower as Lessig, but you
don't seem to appreciate that spammers are 100%, amoral/immoral, greedy
bastards.  They *KNOW* their garbage isn't wanted, and they go to great
lengths to evade blocking.  They *DELIBERATELY FORGE RETURN ADDRESSES*
to *AVOID* getting the flames back from unwilling recipients.  Bounce
messages will simply bury innocent 3rd-parties under a ton of bounces.

  In plain English, this is an ugly/dirty war, and if you insist on
using Marquis of Queensbury rules against a dirty opponent who doesn't,
you will end up losing the war.  I don't want to lose the war.

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will
eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure,
and has a lower TCO, than linux.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg