I've been at the spam problem for a long time, writing challenge/response
blockers back in 97, proposing a lot of other solutions even earlier.
However, I come at it with a strong free speech perspective, as
chairman of the E.F.F. Not that I don't think you have a right
to refuse communications or decide who you will listen to, but
rather that we as architects of new communications systems have a
duty to assure our architecture doesn't end up making default
decisions against free communication, since that could go against
our values. My values, anyway.
For example, you don't design a fail-closed system as a default,
only for people who knowingly insist on them. Like it or not, we've
come to realize the value of communication being open by default.
E-mail is the replacement for mail, and in many cases the phone, and
in many cases many other media. It is entirely based on private
property, so not subject to the normal constitutional protections.
Some consider that a feature, however it's also a bug.
I've considered a number of consent based solutions over the years,
but mostly abandoned them. Without authentication in mail they
require too much user configuration, which users won't do.
While many of my observations over the years can be found in my
essays at
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/
Let me point to two in particular. The first is my current best
plan for getting rid of spam, which only minimally involves consent
or filtering from a technical standpoint.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/endspam.html
And let me also offer the best definition of spam I have come up
with. A definition is necessary for any non-technical approaches, and
even for some technical ones. It is detailed in full at:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/define.html
It is "bulk mail from a stranger" -- where bulk means any form of
mass mailing (even if the individual components differ) and a
stranger is somebody you've never initiated contact with.
This is quite a narrow definition, but the web page details why the
definition has to be narrow to work.
The spam debate gets much nastier than it should, generating a remarkable
amount of emotion. Still, this seems like a serious group so perhaps
there can be some light instead of heat.
Of course, not everybody is a strong free speech defender as we at
the EFF are. If you are, you may want to consider some of the
princples we've laid out at:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/prin.html
Some of them are not popular in the anti-spam community, but we
stick by them. However, they make the problem harder. Protecting
the right of anonymous communication is particularly challenging.
Not punishing the innocent to get at the guilty is at odds with
many of the better known blacklisters. Spammers themselves are
scum, selfishly destroying the value of E-mail for their own
purposes, but the free speech business is sadly always about protecting
rights that get abused by the unpopular.
(That should stir stuff up :-)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg