On 04/09/2003 at 17:57 it appears Brad Templeton
<brad(_at_)templetons(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm sorry. what? are you arguing that we might as well "be in the
arms race" rather than skip ten years ahead to what must be the
final solution?
Absolutely. Of course, if the "final solution" is without cost, we
should jump right to it. But somehow I doubt there is a final
solution, and I doubt that even the strongest solution is without cost
in "collateral damage"
So delay paying the cost as long as you can, that's just basic sense.
Having followed closely the thread on implementation difficulties of different
proposed spam tracking and prevention solutions, I am continually struck with
the thought that there are two main requirements needed to help deal with the
problem:
a) Clear tracking and statistics for the extent of the problem;
b) End user interaction to accomodate the needs of any solution.
Both of these requirements seem to be necessitated by the very nature of the
internet. Basically, the idea and premise of the internet, something which I do
not see changing in any remotely reasonable way, is that a remote system can
initiate connections and usage of bandwidth/services/resources.
So, any system developed to help deal with spam will be reliant upon removing
the extreme incentive that currently exists to send spam with little regard to
the cost downstream, a cost incurred by providers, administrators, and end
users.
To do this, truly adequate and quantitative solutions are needed for tracking,
archiving, and tabulating spam's impacts on these systems.
The problem with all existing statistics I have seen is that the statistics are
always based on the choices made by administrators and/or providers. Is not,
though, the very vagueness of what constitutes spam a decision that must be
made on a case by case basis by end users?
Without the statistics based on the individual decisions of end users, what
value can really be placed on the existing statistics and archives of spam's
impacts?
To gather this information to determine the individual choices of end users,
then, there must be some form of interaction from end users to any solution
presented.
I am wondering if there is a flaw somewhere in this logic. It concerns me
greatly as almost every thread I have seen so far here leads me to these, what
I consider, very basic conclusions.
OK, first post after lurking for a while here and catching up through the
archives and meeting notes... Fire away...
================================================================
Steven G. Willis sgwillis(_at_)deepskytech(_dot_)com 772.794.9494
Deep Sky Technologies, Inc. http://www.deepskytech.com/
http://www.badchickens.com/ http://www.store-secure.com/
================================================================
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg