Just to consolidate:
From: J C Lawrence
Roughly 60% of the mail I write is to people I don't know, and for >which I
don't care (quite literally, zero interest and in a few cases,
negative interest) if those particular people actually receive the
message.
I'm wondering why you would write to them in the first place.
The message obviously isn't that important to you, and if it is important to
them it is quite rude to let your dislike of C/R stand in the way of
delivery.
The problem isn't what the challenge is, it is that there _is_ a
challenge, that there is a bar to be crossed, that in some way I must >do
something extra to win your ear, your screen, your attention.
Have you ever scheduled an apointment with someone? That is a bar to be
crossed, you can't just barge in and demand to speak with someone. It's
rude. The reality is, C/R systems are all around us. They show that you are
a courteous person to respect others wishes, and time.
At this point I'm much more interested in building
a framework for consent systems that we can hang various things one,
like C/R systems and others, as methods of expressing, accomplishing,
and managing consensual relationships, without regard for the specific
of how that particular relationship was achieved.
That is the other aspect of my system (the part that needs a source of
external funding). It is a consent system in which the user has
opt-in/opt-out power, and in which any other spam filtering system could
function. I just think C/R fits perfectly with it.
From: Jamie Lawrence
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.
Spam evolves.
That is not changed by the fact that it can sponaneously arise from nothing.
Past efforts against evolving adversarys should be looked at if we would not
reinvent the wheel.
From: Vernon Schryver
Repeated statements in favor of challenge/response, authentication,
honeypots, or sender-pays spam solutions are not going to convince
the rest of us.
Prhaps it seems like I am trying to convince you, perhaps I am trying to
convice you. But the real goal is to discover your objections, so that I
might address them to help my idea evolve.
It is clear that the sucess or failure of my system is based upon oppinions.
I doubt it is a
coincidence that those proposed solutions have received most of the
vervbage in this mailing list but have very limited and in many cases
no real implementations and in all cases no real life trials or tests,
while other mechanisms (plural) that are dealing with a large fraction
of spam today have had few or no comments.
Systems in use now do not appear to be working. Spam volume is still
increasing exponentialy.
Could the advocates of challenge/response, authentication, honeypots,
and sender-pays temporarly retire with honor from verbal jousting,
and contribute to the ostensible purposes of this mailing list? Or at least
shift some effort from advocacy to implementating,
deploying, and proving the rest of us wrong?
I am assuming you mean me. I am prety much through with the idea stage, and
monday I will start to put my plan into action.
The IRTF/IETF arguing has limited effects and is optional.
I dissagree. An argument is the unabashed sharing of ideas. It has helped me
immensely with my plan. Though now it is clear I will have to move ahead on
my own.
John Fenley
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg