Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:35:59 -0500

>>Second, if spammers are unable to pull a lot of the tricks and deceptions that
>they do at present, I believe that a lot of spam that presently "works"
>economically will no longer be viable.

> Please offer evidence.  Take a large body of spam.  Determine what 
percentage of the messages depend on obfuscation to make their sale. 
Be sure to separate out obfuscation for the purpose of avoiding 
filters from obfuscation for the purpose of fooling users.  

It matters little... if they can't obfuscate to avoid filters, and therefore get 
taken out by the filters, it doesn't matter whether they might or might not have 
tricked the user IF the spam had been delivered.

> Consider whether their are alternative tricks they could play in text (e.g. 
http://[email-masked]/foo is just as likely to fool most 
users as a "hidden" link url).  

Well, less, but I agree that SOME are still there.

But it's a SUBSET.

> I'm sure the results would be valuable to everyone on the list, whether or not 
they agree with your proposal.

If someone here is interested in funding the detailed study, I'd be glad to 
carry it out.

> You keep saying "I believe".  I've responded with absolute numbers 
detailing how many users make active use of HTML.  

Well, yes and no.  Your numbers are based upon a notion of what might or might 
not be "active use".  It also doesn't address the issue of "degree of 
importance" or whether people (given the choice of "spam or [occasional] 
boldface" would still pick the boldface and accept the spam.

So while your numbers provide one data point, I'm not convinced that they really 
represent anything very decisive.

> A number of people have provided perfectly believable scenarios as to why a 
first-contact system won't work.  

I've been in the business long enough to see a **lot** of people present 
scenarios about why some new proposals "won't work".  That's hardly new.  Highly 
esteemed scientists used to insist that heavier-than-air flight isn't workable, 
either.  Clearly, for whatever reason, they were wrong.

> Present your counter scenario.  Explain how the system will work in 
detail, not in vague terms.

The reason the terms are fairly vague is because there are a large number of 
implementation choices that can be made in a variety of ways.  Turning the knobs 
and tweaking the controls is something that gets done during implementation, 
according to the needs and desires of the client paying for the work.  There is 
no NEED to develop one fixed and rigid scenario ahead of time.  Indeed, that's 
part of the advantage of this approach.

> I've suggested that you haven't thought through the architecture 
requirements of your system.

I don't think there ARE much in the way of basic "architectural" requirements 
which are anything much more than trivial.  I don't put a lot more stock in your 
"suggestions" than you seem to put in my "beliefs".  :-)

> The proper response would be to write up an architecture document and do some 
research. 

I'd be glad to do that if somebody would like to fund the project.  Many of you 
other folks here may be salaried, but I'm not, unfortunately.

> You claim to have extensive experience with that kind of thing. 

Yup.  I've been involved in various kinds of product development for a LONG 
time.

> P.S. And cut with the innuendo about people who disagree with you 
*wanting* spam to not get solved.  That's pure crap, 

No, what's crap is misrepresenting what I said.  Please don't misquote me (even 
by suggestion).  Thanks (in advance).

>  The reason you're getting pushback is because people *also* want an internet 
which is easy and powerful to use for everyone--not just techies. 

There's NOTHING technically exotic or hard-to-understand about what I propose.  
Making it "easy and powerful to use" is purely a matter of design choices made 
during the implementation and integration with existing systems, but is hardly 
rocket science.

> You don't think your screwing that up.  We do.

I take it that's the "royal we".  Sorry, anyhow, I don't agree.

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

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:12:52 -0400

Several of my messages that you have replied to were NOT sent to the 
list.  They contains statements which I made specifically because I 
knew they were NOT being posted in a list context.  Since you don't 
seem capable of following basic email etiquette, I'm sure you'll be 
delighted to know that you will not be receiving any further email 
from me.  (And thank goodness, I won't have to read any more of the 
email you insist in sending out in your format, ignoring the 
formatting preferences of all your recpients--how ironic.)

Warning to list members.  Do not reply to gep2 unless you wish to 
have your words made public.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
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.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:55:51 -0500

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>knew they were NOT being posted in a list context.  

We are discussing the issue on a public discussion list.

I don't notice anything that appeared particularly sensitive in what you wrote 
to me.  If you want to say something sensitive and wish that it be kept secret, 
then I suggest that you identify it specifically as such.

If your purpose is just to tie up my time in non-productive offlist discussion, 
frankly, I've got better things to do with my time.  I'm offering my suggestions 
here in hopes that SOME of the people here will find them interesting and 
worthwhile.  I'm not going to get involved in wasteful private and individual 
discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and other 
largely pointless details (and particularly not with individuals whose primary 
thrust seems to be hostile to what I'm proposing, to begin with).  I've simply 
got other demands on my time.

>Since you don't 
>from me.  

Suits me fine, actually.  I think your comments haven't been terribly 
constructive on this proposal, in any case.  

>(And thank goodness, I won't have to read any more of the 

Please do feel free to block my E-mails if they frustrate and annoy you more 
than any value you see in them.  All recipients (should!) have that right.  
Nobody should EVER try to FORCE anybody else to read what they say.  (Life's 
just too short to comply with that level of demands on our time.)

>have your words made public.

I'm certainly capable of maintaining a confidence, when that is warranted.  But 
if you're trying to involve me in some kind of behind-the-scenes whispering 
intrigue, or in something shady that you don't want to be held accountable for, 
I'm not interested in wasting my time on games like that, sorry.