Last post from me on the topic, either you get the point or you don't.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, John Fenley wrote:
Torturing analogies does not make them stronger.
Spam actively evolves using darwinian "survival of the fittest" methods.
Bacteria do this, car crashes do not.
This is not an analogy, this is the actual mechanism for the way spam
behaves.
Feel free to keep thinking so. I'll explain why this is flawed below,
though.
Please, feel free to peddle your approach to whomever you please. Other
approaches incrementally solve problems, work for businesses, do not
require government intervention, approach solving bandwidth issues,
and are not annoying.
An incremental overal aproach just gives an opportunity for spam to evolve.
It is similar to the over-use of antibiotics the medical profesion is
having to deal with now.
The reason you are wrong here is that you are following your flawed
analogy. A one time vaccination effort destroyed smallpox. That
people are no longer vaccinated for it doesn't matter (modulo
creepy government labs).
Going a day with out spam, say by shooting every spammer on earth, will
not ensure that spam stays gone - it is a side effect of the
infrastructure and human nature, not an external entity.
Ask yourself how you'd go about 'vaccinating' the world against
grafitti.
That it works for one purpose does not make it
appropriate for pushing down to every initial email contact.
Why not?
Because it will not work for businesses, requires massive funding,
does not solve bandwidth issues, and is annoying. You may have heard
this somewhere before.
Propose an alternate means of funding if you wish to have that argument.
No, thanks.
-j
--
Jamie Lawrence jal(_at_)jal(_dot_)org
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg