Subject: [Asrg] Protecting Legitimate Commercial Email (was Re: ESPC Proposal)

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 10:46:51 -0400

I've managed to keep mostly quiet up to now, but I have to say I'm 
disturbed at the extremism implied by some of the reactions to the ESPC 
proposal (which, for the record, I know nothing about beyond what I 
read today on the web site).

None of us would be on this list if we didn't think spam was a bad 
thing, and none of us would waste our time reading it if we didn't feel 
fairly passionately about that fact.  However, if we want to achieve 
consensus on a solution, it really behooves us to consider the 
interests of *all* of the legitimate senders of email, including some 
who are rather different from most of us individuals.

I believe passionately that many kinds of commercial use of email are 
Very Good Things.  Every bill and account statement that I get via 
email saves a fraction of a tree; already whole forests are arguably 
being saved on utility billing, for example.  The same applies to the 
commercial mailings I get from Amazon, the New York Mets, and the ACLU. 
  I opted in to their programs, and I want to get their mail.  Solutions 
to spam that neglect the interest that those organizations have in 
communicating with me are ultimately not in my interest, either.

It seems obvious that the ESPC is an attempt by those who self-define 
as legitimate commercial emailers to separate themselves from spam well 
enough to construct discriminating solutions.  We may well argue with 
how some of them define legitimate commercial email, but it is only by 
hashing out those definitions that we are going to solve this problem.  
(I have talked with enough of these people to know that what they want 
most is a Very Clear Line not to cross, but they are competitively 
disadvantaged if they draw that line more competitively than the next 
guy, and thus badly need a consensus-based Line.)  If we neglect their 
interest in favor of blacklists that prevent 20% of their customers 
from receiving their messages, we will never converge on a universal 
solution, because some very big companies will perceive themselves as 
having no choice but to fight in court against our "solutions".

It seems to me that everyone on the ASRG list should be *welcoming* the 
effort that ESPC seems to represent, and that we (the technical 
community) should be engaging in critical but respectful discussions 
about the details.  To think that the IETF can "solve" this problem in 
a way that is unacceptable to the ESPC members is to grossly overstate 
the influence of the IETF in today's Internet.  Remember that behind 
every DoubleClick stand dozens of Citibanks, Lufthansas, and Wal-marts 
tryingto communicate with their opt-in customers.  I'd hate to see the 
IETF try to fight them all.  -- Nathaniel

PS -- FWIW, my own domain, guppylake.com, has been spam-blocked and 
unable to send mail to anyone at Road Runner (rr.com) for over two 
weeks now.  Apparently Road Runner is engaged in a pissing match with 
XO Communications, my provider, and I'm caught in the cross fire -- 
they're each telling me that I have to convince the other to do 
something.  In this case, Road Runner is ignoring all the evidence and 
presuming me guilty until vouched for as innocent by my own provider, 
XO, which seems to be suffering nothing more than the normal gross 
incompetence I have come to expect from ISP's.  I find it hard to 
believe that this kind of blacklisting can possibly be a good thing, 
and I certainly don't feel like I've been given any Due Process rights. 
  -- Nathaniel 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Apr 2003 14:35:11 -0500

In <[email-masked]> Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]> writes:

> commercial mailings I get from Amazon, the New York Mets, and the
> ACLU. I opted in to their programs, and I want to get their mail.
> Solutions to spam that neglect the interest that those organizations
> have in communicating with me are ultimately not in my interest,
> either.

Yeah, but none of those organizations are a part of either ESPC nor
the JamSpamDownYourThroat people.

> as legitimate commercial emailers to separate themselves from spam
> well enough to construct discriminating solutions.

Yep, and I've said before:  ->*IF*<- the ESPC standard of conduct is
usable by receivers of email, I expect it to be used in conjunction
with other anti-spam systems.  If, on the other hand, it is only
useful to the senders, I expect it to be ignored.

>                                                                  If we
> neglect their interest in favor of blacklists that prevent 20% of
> their customers from receiving their messages, we will never converge
> on a universal solution, because some very big companies will perceive
> themselves as having no choice but to fight in court against our
> "solutions".

Uh, are you assuming that the 20% of "their customers" that are being
blocked by DNSBLs actually *want* to receive the email?

I suspect that a certain percentage want the email from the ESPC
members and aren't getting it, but I also suspect that a larger
percentage of people are receiving email from the ESPC and don't want
it.

As far as fighting in courts, well, I wouldn't recommend that
solution.  Email senders (spammers or otherwise) haven't won too many
court battles.

> It seems to me that everyone on the ASRG list should be *welcoming*
> the effort that ESPC seems to represent, and that we (the technical
> about the details.

Uh, and what details are there to discuss?

The only detail that I can see is that ESPC has made a huge PR
announcement with nothing to back them up.  That doesn't sound very
promising to me.

-wayne

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:52:43 -0400

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:46:51AM -0400, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote
> disturbed at the extremism implied by some of the reactions to the
> ESPC proposal (which, for the record, I know nothing about beyond
> what I read today on the web site).

  You admit to knowing nothing about ESPC. I'll give you credit for
that.  ESPC are spammers-in-pinstripe-suits.  Most of them have been in
MAPS-RBL at one time or another.  That is *BAD*.  Getting MAPS-RBL to
list someone ranks just below getting Jean Chretien to join the war on
Sadam in terms of difficulty.  Some of the ESPC members have sued their
way out of MAPS-RBL.  That is *REALLY BAD*.  These outfits define spam
as "that-which-we-do-not-do".  The extremely visceral reaction is due to
the companies presenting it.

> However, if we want to achieve consensus on a solution, it really
> behooves us to consider the interests of *all* of the legitimate
> senders of email, including some who are rather different from most
> of us individuals.

  Farmers guarding the henhouse do *NOT* need consensus support from
"the legitimate fox community".

> guy, and thus badly need a consensus-based Line.)

  They damn well know what the "Very Clear Line" is; if I didn't ask for
their garbage, they should not send it.  Period.  End of story.

> If we neglect their interest

  Just like farmers guarding the henhouse neglect the interests of "the
legitimate fox community".

> in favor of blacklists that prevent 20% of their customers from
> receiving their messages, we will never converge on a universal
> solution, because some very big companies will perceive themselves
> as having no choice but to fight in court against our "solutions".

  Welcome to the coming battle for control of your inbox.  Here's a few
facts of life...
  - there is a small market for confirmed opt-in mailing lists
  - the dot-COM-ers of the late 1990's all jumped in at once
  - there isn't enough business to support them all
  - in addition to a small amount of legitimate business, they also send
    out a lot of unsolicited garbage, for which they get paid; that's
    what keeps them going financially
  - if they stop sending out the unsolicited portion of their emailings,
    (doesn't matter if it's voluntary or blocked by DNSbls) most members
    of the ESPC will be financially ruined
  - *THE VERY SURVIVAL* of most members of the ESPC depends on their
    continuing ability to JamSpamDownYourThroat.  People don't like that
    garbage in their inboxes any more than they like telemarketers
    calling during supper.  Therefore the *ONLY* way that ESPC and their
    ilk can survive is by making "campaign contributions" to "the best
    legislators that money can buy" in hopes of buying laws that
    prohibit blocking email from ESPC members.

> the influence of the IETF in today's Internet.

  There are ways around that.  If blocking is outlawed in your country...
  1) Get a regular email account at your ISP with a small quota, say 2
     megabytes.
  2) Watch it fill up with spam in a few days.
  3) Get a spam-protected account that you can access via SSL webmail or
     ssh, in a foreign country

  The ESPC can pound away at your "official" email address all day long,
and they'll get "mailbox full, try again later" messages.  Meanwhile,
you can have an "unofficial" email address that actually works for
personal communication.

> Remember that behind every DoubleClick stand dozens of Citibanks,
> Lufthansas, and Wal-marts trying to communicate with their opt-in
> customers.  I'd hate to see the IETF try to fight them all.

My Idea for Getting Wanted Email Through
========================================

  Enough of my criticisms; have I got a better solution?  What if all
those millions of recipients *REALLY* *REALLY* *REALLY* want those
"newsletters", etc?  Personally, I think that claim is a sick joke on
par with claiming that people love to have their supper interrupted by
telemarketers.  However, I'm willing to give e-marketers the opportunity
to prove me wrong.

  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, all those people on the
"Millions CDs" really *DID* want those ads.  There is a very simple
solution that would not require any conferences, or standards, or
legislation.

  The email marketers could set up their own "legitimate commercial
email delivery" ISP, which they would control, and willing "newsletter
subscribers" could join that ISP.  Not only will they guarantee delivery
of their messages to willing subscribers, but those people who buy stock
early in the new ISP will MAKE_MONEY_FAST as the stock shoots up through
the roof when millions of newsletter-starved subscribers come crawling
in on their hands and knees, begging to be allowed to join up.  The
financial carnage amongst today's big ISPs will be horrendous when
people find out about all the "exciting offers" they've been missing and
abandon the big names in droves.

  If e-marketers are really telling the truth about all their millions of
eager "double-opt-in-subscribers", this is your opportunity to...
  - guarantee email delivery *TO WILLING RECIPIENTS ONLY*
  - and make a financial killing
  - and prove that you aren't out to JamSpamDownTheThroats of unwilling
    recipients

  I'm even willing to be there to cut the ribbon at the opening ceremony
for that ISP.  OK e-marketers, ***PUT UP OR SHUT UP***.

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:27:26 -0400

Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
> Very Good Things.  Every bill and account statement that I get via email 
> saves a fraction of a tree;

Furthermore, every every bill and account statement you get by email 
puts money in our pocket too - the stuff we sell _is_ the Internet 
(we're one of the world's largest manufacturers of Internet equipment).

But.

If spam pisses everyone off so much they abandon email, the net result 
is a loss of business, not a gain.

And obviously, _we_ want to use email to market, and we do. By not doing 
the things that many of the ESPC members do - sending email to people 
who didn't ask for it.

> It seems obvious that the ESPC is an attempt by those who self-define as 
> legitimate commercial emailers to separate themselves from spam well 
> enough to construct discriminating solutions.

There be the crux: "self-define".  Most if not all of the ESPC members 
are currently blacklisted here.  Not because we're confusing them with 
someone else (which is what the ESPC is all about preventing), but 
because they really _are_ spamming.

ESPC won't do anything to reduce spam volumes.  It won't even do 
anything to help those marketers get their messages through - because we 
don't want what they _are_ sending already.

The main issue isn't about identity.  It isn't about content.  It's 
about _consent_.  ESPC won't do anything about enforcing consent on the 
senders, nor allow the recipients to determine whether there was consent.