Subject: Re: [Asrg] Ban the bounce; improved challenge-response systems

From: Art Pollard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 15:44:11 -0600

At 08:42 AM 4/6/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>I think the problem here is that some people think there is some sort of
>obligation to remain tie to the lowest common denominator.
>
>99% of internet users cannot send to UUCP. I see this a geek-tweak rather
>than a serious constraint.
>
>I find the third world argument unconvicing. I seriously doubt the nigerians
>are sending their stuff over uucp. If uucp is no longer viable people wil
>soon find a alternative.
>
>We should make smtp work as well as it can. I seriously doubt that will
>affect gateways to obsolete protocols, if it does, deal with it.

I agree.

I believe that if we come up with a new protocol that avoids SPAM, that 
doesn't mean that it shuts everyone else out or that we should tie 
ourselves to the lowest common denominator as you point out.  If we worked 
towards the lowest common denominator, then I suspect finding a solution 
will be much more difficult if not impossible.

Instead, I would like to see a new and better protocol.  The new mail 
programs could take advantage of it and its new capabilities.  (I for one 
would like to see a References: header just like in NNTP for article 
threading though that has nothing to do with spam in itself.)

I believe that with a new protocol, people will switch as time allows. 
First inside the corporate world and who are primarily communicating with 
their co-workers.  Then slowly the rest of the world.  Meanwhile, I suspect 
the old techniques and protocols will fall by the wayside simply because of 
the spam.  If people want to keep it that is ok.  However, most everybody 
else would have moved on.  In fact, I believe the analogy of the alt.* 
groups to be a good one. More freedom than the regular newsgroups but that 
same freedom has made the signal to noise ratio such that everybody more or 
less hangs out on the regular newsgroups.

Furthermore, I don't think we need to worry about blocking all spam.  All I 
want to do is have it go into a "spam folder" or some such.  So, some have 
worried about mailing lists etc. and being able to send confirmation 
messages to the mailing list server and how to handle automated systems 
such as this.  Well, in this case, if all the old SMTP messages go to a 
special folder, I can check it when and if I subscribe to a mailing 
list.  Meanwhile, I can / could simply ignore it and all the other spam 
that is in it.

So, quite frankly I don't care if I get spammed -- as long as I don't see 
it. If I see it then that is another matter.

-Art
-- 
Art Pollard
http://www.lextek.com/
Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines.

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

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 17:47:26 -0700

On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 15:44:11 -0600 
> At 08:42 AM 4/6/2003 -0700, you wrote:

<mutters things to self about the utterly broken aspect of Eudora and
its handling of message attributions.  Just who the heck is "you"
supposed to be in a group discussion?>

> programs could take advantage of it and its new capabilities.  (I for
> one would like to see a References: header just like in NNTP for
> article threading though that has nothing to do with spam in itself.)

References: is a currently supported header, listed as a "should occur
in replies.".  See RFC 2822

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 20:39:50 -0400

This is just too funny.  When will people get a clue?  Here we are in 
the middle of discussing banning bounced messages, fixing challenge 
responses, and of course, Turing Tests.

Apparently they've never heard of Turing in Toronto.

At 6:12 PM -0400 4/6/03, Bob Jonkman wrote:
>X-Msgfire: MAIL https://www.messagefire.com/member/report.html?id=368124
>X-PM-Status: PURE https://www.messagefire.com/member/report.html?id=368124
>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1
>Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 18:12:53 -0400
>From: "Bob Jonkman" <[email-masked]>
>Sender: [email-masked]
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [Asrg] Whitelisting on Message-ID (Was Turing Test ...) (Reply
>	to Test Message: )
>
>Your test message has been successfully received!
>
>This is an automated reply to a message sent with with the subject 
>line containing "test message".  Your message has been deleted.  If 
>you did not intend this, please resend your message, but make sure 
>it does not have a subject line containing "test message"!
>
>===========
>Bob Jonkman                    mailto:[email-masked]
>Corporate Messaging Team            http://www.city.toronto.on.ca
>Municipality of the City of Toronto        Voice: +1-416-392-7093
>703 Don Mills Avenue, 3rd Floor              Fax: +1-416-397-9813
>Toronto   Ontario   Canada   M5H 2N2      
>Pager: +1-416-405-1357   mailto:[email-masked]
>
>Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of
>the City of Toronto unless expressly stated otherwise.
>
>
>>>>  nazgul 04/06/03 18:06 >>>

-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:10:31 -0400

At 3:44 PM -0600 4/6/03, Art Pollard wrote:
>I believe that if we come up with a new protocol that avoids SPAM, 
>that doesn't mean that it shuts everyone else out or that we should 
>tie ourselves

So far nobody has proposed a way of doing this that passes the 
incentive test.  If it doesn't shut out the world, then it doesn't 
offer any immediate benefits.  If that protocol offered some *other* 
benefit, then we might stand a chance.  (Someone suggested that such 
a protocol might evolve out of IM--starting as a way of sending 
instant messages to someone who is not currently on. That's not an 
outrageous possibility.)
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:04:24 -0400

On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 08:39:50PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote
> >it does not have a subject line containing "test message"!

  And my city taxes go for that ?!?!  Another example of why content-
based filtering isn't to be trusted.

-- 
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