Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:45:47 -0600

>From: Jamie Lawrence <[email-masked]>
>To: John Fenley <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity
>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:58:46 -0500
>
>On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, John Fenley wrote:
>
> > >   Most diseases fall somewhere in between.  Spam looks more like the
> > >common cold than any other analagous disease, so it's probably going
> > >to be impossible to get rid of entirely.
> >
> > Spam uses human vectors to propegate just as smallpox did. The type of
> > internet user who actually buys products from spam is the human vector 
>that
> > allows spam to complete it's "life cycle".
>
>Spam doesn't "use" anything. Spam is generated by people motivated by
>economics and made possible by the nature of the infrastructure. It
>will not go away, but can be mitigated to varying degrees by changes
>to the infrastructure.
>
>Arguing that spam is a disease is the same as arguing that car
>crashes are a disease.

Spam evolves.
Spam foats around randomly untill it finds someone who will allow it to 
spread.
Partial defences give rise to virulent "resistant strains" of spam.

In these ways spam is EXACTLY like a disease.

> > I have heard many arguments against Challenge/Response systems, but many 
>of
>
>[...]
>
> > C/R would not be good for a buissiness address.
> >       A buissiness is not going to buy from spam, thus they are not a 
>vector
> > for it's propegation.
>
>Incorrect. Businesses recieve spam, and are made of people. People
>buy stuff from spam.

ok, so they are a vector.
the point is, my system is not aimed at the buissiness user who must recieve 
orders and requests daily from strangers.
It is aimed at the majority of new internet users.
I don't see this "problem" as a reason why it will not work for them.

> > C/R is annoying to people.
> >       C/R isn't going to stop a friend from emailing you. I'm guessing 
>the
> > majority of email a new internet user recieves is from personal friends.
> > Also my twist on the turing test *could* be fun for a new user, and 
>whomever
> > decides to mail them.
>
>I will not use a CR system, so you're right, it won't stop a friend from
>emailing me.

That is ok, you don't have to challenge your incoming messages. My system 
merely allows you the choice.

> > 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.
>
>Alan handled this point well.
>
>
>The main issue is that C/R, no matter how annoying (sorry, "fun") you
>make it, addresses the issue by erecting roadblocks to communication
>rather than changing the nature of the communications channel in any
>meaningful way.

The details are important. Everyone here responbed to the "address 
verification" performed by this list. This was a Challenge, and all of you 
Responded. C/R.

You wanted something more than it inconvinienced you to respond.

>
> > [...] Spam decreases
> > productivity. Immediate action is nessisary. I feel a disease 
>eradication
> > aproach is the correct one.
>
>Your apparent desire to get governments involved is making more sense.

Yes, the government has the funds to make a plan into reality if that plan 
can realy solve the problem.

John Fenley

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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

---

From: Jamie Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:39:30 -0500

> >Arguing that spam is a disease is the same as arguing that car

...In the same way as car crashes do; in response to the infrastructure.
Bridges, highways, and dense urban areas have all caused car crashes to
'evolve'.

Torturing analogies does not make them stronger.

> Spam foats around randomly untill it finds someone who will allow it to 

In the same way car crashes lurk with evil intent until some unsusecting
automotive administrator approaches a curve. In other words, it doesn't.

I'm belaboring this because the point is important. Disease eradication
efforts are very different than harm reduction efforts. Attacking spam
is a harm reduction problem.

> the point is, my system is not aimed at the buissiness user who must 
> recieve orders and requests daily from strangers.

Please, feel free to peddle your approach to whomever you please. Other
approaches incrementally solve problems, work for businesses, do not 
require government intervention, approach solving bandwidth issues, 
and are not annoying.

> You wanted something more than it inconvinienced you to respond.

Sure. It is a fine mechanism to weed out subscription bombs, and 
has a nice side effect in that the utterly clueless usually can't 
seem to manage it. That it works for one purpose does not make it 
appropriate for pushing down to every initial email contact.
 
> can realy solve the problem.

That governments (the "s" is important) have taxation authority does 
not automatically make them desirable entites in a given persuit, even
one with a social good. 

I'm not going to write yet another long essay on why regulation of 
email is a Really Bad Idea; that has been covered here enough times 
already.

-j

-- 
Jamie Lawrence                                        [email-masked]
Regime change begins at home.