Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML
2003-03-15 10:57:03
Comments:
In the Second Order section, the comments regarding blacklists are
misleading, oft times factually incorrect, and clearly biased. On the
contrary, most blacklists, especially the reputable ones (and there are
many), contain dispute/retest mechanisms and contact addresses. List all
of China - well, why not, if the person running the MTA has no
correspondants in China, why shouldn't they? BL "Listing all of UUNET?"
- flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has ever done so.
[Oft-stated rumours and claims, but turn out to be just plain wrong.
Tend to have their origin in journalists being mislead by spammers.]
Re: Email Infrastructure [re: X.400 and UUCP]: "apparently technically
sophisticated enough to use email but not sophisticated enough to use
1980s technology.". Ahem. Unnecessary, gratuitous (and IMHO
uneducated) insult. There are many reasons why X.400/UUCP are still in
use. Several of them good technical ones. Even with SMTP, there are
many instances where, for example, active callback verification methods
cannot work.
Re: Opt-out lists. You skipped several arguments: if every company in
the US spammed you just once over the course of a year, you'd have to
opt-out 650 times per day. I don't think that's sustainable. Secondly,
especially, at that volume, why should the onus be on the recipient to
expend effort? I didn't ask for it, why do I need to ask _not_ to get
it? Depriving the spammers of excuses doesn't stop them spamming. Even
the DMA's eMPS system was a joke.
Last paragraph in that section makes no logical sense.
I think the comments about "fake originator" addresses isn't in the
least sustainable by thorough statistical investigation. 90%? Not in
our feed.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML,
Chris Lewis <=
- RE: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Matt Sergeant
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Kee Hinckley
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, John R. Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML, Valdis . Kletnieks
|
|
|