From: Anonymous
To: "John Fenley" <pontifier(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Asr?g] Legal side track
At 1:52 PM -0600 on 4/14/03, you wrote:
If I went to your inbox, and took some messages out you would be mad,
right? That is what I am against. Nobody should be able to say "they won't
want that, yoink, they'll never even know it was here", unless I ASK them
to do that.
If that's what you believe, why are you using hotmail? They do that.
I choose to use hotmail.
I don't think sending address has any value as a spam indicator.
and isp's can't decide what spam is anyway. only the recipient can do
that.
I'm not a fan of blacklists. However this is demonstrably not true. ISPs
can and do successfully block billions of messages on a daily basis.
Virtually all of that is definitely spam.
Perhaps
I said "third party interference"
someone in the middle should not be allowed to block mail. Once the mail
is sent, it must be protected and delivered regardless of origin or
content.
So, you don't want to block spam after it is sent.
Not untill it gets to the recipient, and whatever solution they have chosen
deals with it.
Blacklisting is an inferior "solution" altogether. It is only effective
after spam has been sent, and it could block legitimate mail.
But you don't think a solution that blocks spam after it is sent is a good
one.
see above response
Also, why can't a Mail User Agent notify senders?
Have you not been reading the list? All those messages about "a message
rejection should happen early in the process"? Everyone agreeing that
whenever possible the MTA should reject the message in the SMTP process,
rather than sending an out-of-band bounce message which may or may not go
to the write place and have the right information?
I don't think message rejection should happen untill the end user's
decisions enter into the equasion. Just because everyone agrees, doesn't
mean everyone is right.
Every sender (especially a spammer) should be notified if their message does
not go through.
Perhaps my idea started as the same old challenge/response but over the
past week it has evolved into something I feel is much better, that is
what research does to ideas. Reasearchers look at the real problem, not
the symptoms. Reasearchers examine their ideas from all sides, and
researchers try to understand ideas before they shoot them down. If a
Reasearcher sees a problem, they examine why it is a problem, and then try
to solve it. Researchers do not let personal biases against ideas
influence them unless they have a valid reason. Also a researcher does not
"beat a dead horse" unless they realy think there is something that has
been missed. A good researcher can change how they feel about an idea
based on its merit as an idea, their loyalty is to the solution, not a
solution.
Quite.
I'm glad you agree.
a reasearchers response to "blacklists don't stop spam untill after they
are sent." would not be to restate the importance of blacklists. It would
be one of these:
How are you planning to stop spam before it is sent?
By creating a free end-user solution that is so robust and widely adopted
that bulk email is no longer an economical advertising vector.
John Fenley
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg