Subject: [Asrg] I want spam gone by the end of the year.

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 22:07:27 -0600

Just to consolidate:

From: J C Lawrence
>Roughly 60% of the mail I write is to people I don't know, and for >which I 
>don't care (quite literally, zero interest and in a few cases,
>negative interest) if those particular people actually receive the
>message.

I'm wondering why you would write to them in the first place.
The message obviously isn't that important to you, and if it is important to 
them it is quite rude to let your dislike of C/R stand in the way of 
delivery.

>The problem isn't what the challenge is, it is that there _is_ a
>challenge, that there is a bar to be crossed, that in some way I must >do 
>something extra to win your ear, your screen, your attention.

Have you ever scheduled an apointment with someone? That is a bar to be 
crossed, you can't just barge in and demand to speak with someone. It's 
rude. The reality is, C/R systems are all around us. They show that you are 
a courteous person to respect others wishes, and time.

>At this point I'm much more interested in building
>a framework for consent systems that we can hang various things one,
>like C/R systems and others, as methods of expressing, accomplishing,
>and managing consensual relationships, without regard for the specific
>of how that particular relationship was achieved.

That is the other aspect of my system (the part that needs a source of 
external funding). It is a consent system in which the user has 
opt-in/opt-out power, and in which any other spam filtering system could 
function. I just think C/R fits perfectly with it.

From: Jamie Lawrence
>The reason you are wrong here is that you are following your flawed
>analogy. A one time vaccination effort destroyed smallpox. That people are 
>no longer vaccinated for it doesn't matter (modulo creepy government labs).
>
>Going a day with out spam, say by shooting every spammer on earth, will
>not ensure that spam stays gone - it is a side effect of the
>infrastructure and human nature, not an external entity.
>
>Ask yourself how you'd go about 'vaccinating' the world against
>grafitti.

Spam evolves.
That is not changed by the fact that it can sponaneously arise from nothing.
Past efforts against evolving adversarys should be looked at if we would not 
reinvent the wheel.

From: Vernon Schryver
>Repeated statements in favor of challenge/response, authentication,
>honeypots, or sender-pays spam solutions are not going to convince
>the rest of us.

Prhaps it seems like I am trying to convince you, perhaps I am trying to 
convice you. But the real goal is to discover your objections, so that I 
might address them to help my idea evolve.

It is clear that the sucess or failure of my system is based upon oppinions.

>I doubt it is a
>coincidence that those proposed solutions have received most of the
>vervbage in this mailing list but have very limited and in many cases
>no real implementations and in all cases no real life trials or tests,
>while other mechanisms (plural) that are dealing with a large fraction
>of spam today have had few or no comments.

Systems in use now do not appear to be working. Spam volume is still 
increasing exponentialy.

>Could the advocates of challenge/response, authentication, honeypots,
>and sender-pays temporarly retire with honor from verbal jousting,
>and contribute to the ostensible purposes of this mailing list? Or at least 
>shift some effort from advocacy to implementating,
>deploying, and proving the rest of us wrong?

I am assuming you mean me. I am prety much through with the idea stage, and 
monday I will start to put my plan into action.

>The IRTF/IETF arguing has limited effects and is optional.

I dissagree. An argument is the unabashed sharing of ideas. It has helped me 
immensely with my plan. Though now it is clear I will have to move ahead on 
my own.

John Fenley

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail 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: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:02:21 -0700

John,

JF> The message obviously isn't that important to you, and if it is important to
JF> them it is quite rude to let your dislike of C/R stand in the way of
JF> delivery.

You are enjoying some really strange logic, though it is of a type
that seems fashionable these days.

The idea that the C/R might itself be rude does not even cross your
mind. The idea that it introduces wasteful delays apparently has not
registered. The idea that increasing the baseline cost of all
communications, in order to deal with a problem caused by only a
portion, and thereby makes simple communications excessively expensive
apparently does not even compute.

Email serves a wide variety of purposes. It can be an alternative to a
number of very different communication modes, each with very different
etiquette and tolerating very different costs.

Perhaps you think it is reasonable to ask everyone you talk to to
first be authenticated by having blood drawn and tested for a DNA
match, but most of the world will disagree.

They will call it more than rude.

Mechanisms for dealing with spam need to be careful about their
side-effects as well as the utility of their direct effects.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 03:48:41 -0700

On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 22:07:27 -0600 

> Just to consolidate: 

I wish you wouldn't.  It ruins In-Reply-To/References threading.

>> Roughly 60% of the mail I write is to people I don't know, and for
>> which I don't care (quite literally, zero interest and in a few
>> cases, negative interest) if those particular people actually receive
>> the message.

> I'm wondering why you would write to them in the first place.  

There are several reasons, mostly typically that I'm interested in
participating in the list/forum/community and thus other incidental
audiences for the message rather than that recipient in particular.
What is missing is any specific value or caring on my part for that
>especial< recipient.  I rarely give a rats whether any given individual
receives a courtesy copy of one of my list posts (tho I do care that I
at least send it as a courtesy).

This post to this list is a decent example.  I am replying to your post.
A courtesy copy is directed to you.  You may receive the courtesy copy,
you may not.  You may read the courtesy copy, you may not.  Little
matter.  My primary interest is that the message reaches [email-masked],
and is broadcast and archived.  The rest is happenstance and protocol.

Now if your system wants to challenge the list broadcast...  That's
between you and the list owner.  My standard response as a list owner
would be to null route your domain after the third challenge.  No more
challenge.  No more problem.

> The message obviously isn't that important to you, and if it is
> important to them it is quite rude to let your dislike of C/R stand in
> the way of delivery.

It might be important to them, it might not.  If it is, its up to them,
not me, to ensure that they receive and read those important messages.
After all, that is their importance assignment, not mine.  My assignment
of importance on my message for that recipient in particular is quite
low.  They are free to differ, and on that basis, are free to build a
system which demonstrates that difference in value assignments, be it
positive or negative.

Quite literally, in the general case its none of my business or interest
whichever way their inclinations run.

>> challenge, that there is a bar to be crossed, that in some way I must
>> >do something extra to win your ear, your screen, your attention.

> Have you ever scheduled an apointment with someone? 

Sure.  Have you?

> That is a bar to be crossed, you can't just barge in and demand to
> speak with someone. 

Ignoring the needless pejorative, "demand", certainly, but I can
metaphorically barge in by emailing them right now, this very second,
and requesting they call me at their leisure.  If email is not
available, a post-it note dropped on their desk for their convenient
attention is equally effective.

> It's rude.

Email is a wonderful system that way -- it doesn't require immediate
reading _OR_ response, or in fact any attention at all.

> The reality is, C/R systems are all around us. 

They can be.  There needn't be.  As happens, in my life there are
relatively few of them, and they grow fewer by the day.  Please don't
assume that everyone else is as parochial as you.  It unnecessarily
demeans you.

> They show that you are a courteous person to respect others wishes,
> and time.

Oddly enough, it is precisely that which C/R email systems generally
demonstrate the reverse of to me.  C/R systems on personal email systems
effectively demonstrates to me that the person behind the C/R address
has little to no respect for my time, attention, or wishes, and in fact
considers themselves to be so extremely compelling and spectacular that
I must of course be ready and willing to perform tricks just for the
glorious honour of being allowed to get a communication in their
presence.

Now precisely why did I want to send this priggish boor an email again?
Precisely why did I want to willingly subject myself to that abuse?  Am
I really that hungry for humiliation?  Do I need to be told that I and
my time is worthless?

No thanks.  I've better things to do with my time, and better people to
spend it on.

I will respond to C/R systems on personal email addresses when I have a
personal driving interest, a consuming investment, which validates and
justifies the expense.  Examples might be a question or petition I send
to an expert or authority.  So far that has happened once.  In fact, the
only time it has happened has been for a role address.

Surprising that.

-- 
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