Brad Templeton <brad(_at_)templetons(_dot_)com> wrote:
What matters again is the game of numbers. Can we cut the spam down
by 3 orders of magnitude? If so, we win.
Some people won't.
There's always the poor sap on the end of the statistical
distribution. He laughs at people whining about 40% spam rates. If
his level of spam was cut down by 3 orders of magnitude, then the spam
would only be double his normal email traffic.
If the "solutions" to spam involve still allowing spammers to
overwhelm some people, then those solutions will just get you cursed
by the guy who's *still* getting spammed, when everyone else things
that the problem has gone away.
I deal with only a few companies, but I glance at a lot of web pages
when winnowing search engine results.
Sure. But if they all spammed and you could get off right away,
how bad would it be?
Bad. That's what's happening today, and it doesn't help.
It's 10,000 companies in the world versus little old me. They can
exchange information, and all decide to spam me. They have the
resources to send massive amounts of spam, and to deal with any
technical or legal ramifications.
When 10,000 people want to talk to you at the same time, there's
nothing you can do except give up, and leave the room. You've been
deafened, silenced, and harrassed all at the same time.
The fact that they want to "help" you by selling you a product is
irrelevant.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg