ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

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