Subject: Re: [Asrg] Collected comments on spamming, permissions lists, et al

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:14:26 -0500

>>I suspect that the larger outfits will come onboard slower, perhaps 
>>kicking and
>>screaming (despite the fact that THEY will have the most to gain by doing so).

>Really?  So they have absolutely no idea what's good for themselves 
>and their customers?  Odd that they are in business.

Corporate inertia is an unfortunate thing, sometimes.

>>If we don't have to worry about E-mail bulk, then we're mostly 
>>wasting our time here.

>>The lawsuits that HAVE been placed against spammers by large ISPs usually are
>>predicated precisely on the fact that the spam wastes ISP resources and costs
>>them a significant amount of money.

>Which of those lawsuits complained that the messages were too big?

The lawsuits have typically needed to put a dollar figure on the damages, and 
generally they do that in terms of volume, which has a direct and quantifiable 
dollar cost associated with it.  I'll try to snare some of these articles as I 
see them go by.

>>...For these people, it is
>>highly annoying to get an E-mail that includes text-image fetches from Web
>>servers and other forms of Web bugs in it.

>Absolutely.  But solving that problem doesn't require removing HTML 
>email does it?  

Perhaps not, although removing HTML tags from the mail does solve it.

>And go look at the numbers I posted.  Note the number 
>of messages with and without image tags and with and without 
>attachments.  The majority of HTML email does not have external image 
>tags.  *That* particular problem is pretty much restricted to 
>spammers and (even more so) commercial bulk mailers like Amazon and 
>other companies.  And if you think they are going to buy into the 
>idea that they are going to get a bounce message the first time their 
>customer forgets to whitelist them (which will be most of the time), 
>I think you are very mistaken.

I don't dispute that there will be some [very] minor inconveniences while the 
system is coming up to speed and consumers are getting used to it.  I think that 
is going to be true of basically *anything* that involves a change, IF that 
change in fact makes a difference.  I believe that the payback will be very much 
worth the temporary adjustements.

I still do contend that sending HTML-burdened E-mail in a 'first contact' is a 
very poor strategy, and that the recipient should have the choice of whether 
they wish to allow their limited Inbox space to be consumed that way.

>>> Unfortunately, restricting email content type seems unlikely to have
>>any long-term impact on spam, as the spammers will simply adapt their
>>behavior to whatever content type is most likely to get their message
>>across.

>>That claim is self-contradictory.  If spammers change their behavior 
>>to send out
>>plain ASCII text spam messages, since that is the only type certain to get
>>through from previously unknown senders, then we *have* had a long-term impact
>>on spam... if _nothing_ else, by reducing its volume by 70% or more.

>If you search the archives, you'll see that we had the volume 
>discussion a while back.  The vast majority of the respondents felt 
>that volume was *not* an issue.  

It is the PRIMARY ongoing element in the cost of handling spam E-mail messages.

>In fact, if you do some analysis, I 
>believe you will find that the majority of the volume of email comes 
>not from HTML, but from attachments (word docs, powerpoint 
>presentations, pictures of the kids...).  While 10 1k messages become 
>10 4k HTML messages.  The first attachment that comes in dwarfs them 
>all.

That volume is FINE, *if* it's stuff that the recipients *want*.

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

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