On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
I believe that even that one-time price is sufficiently high to deter
a lot of spammers.
forgive me if I'm skeptical.
You're forgiven. But it's worth a shot.
Furthermore, the system can be tuned.
you're still trying to evaluate messages based on some criteria that
have nothing to do with whether the recipient wants it or not.
Well, it is *impossible* to tell if the recipient wants a message or
not. So if that's the only measure we can use, we might as well quit
right now. I don't know if I want a message or not until I've read it,
and by then it's too late. And even if I didn't want it, it doesn't
mean the other recipients didn't either.
This does, as you say, hurt infrequent mailers. That's an unavoidable
side-effect.
we can certainly avoid it by not using this scheme.
Fine. What do you suggest instead? People already use a lot more
brute-force approaches with a lot worse side-effects, so I think you
are simply being disagreeable.
That's true, but forcing any kind of detectable behaviour onto
spammers is a good thing.
not if it's a waste of effort.
It's not a waste of effort even if it only reduces bandwidth from
bounced message bodies.
--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg