At 5:56 PM +0100 4/22/03, Jon Kyme wrote:
>
But you missed the biggest implication. I have to be online in order
to receive a request. Not only that, I have to be on the internet.
Actually, that's not quite true is it? MKD didn't say:
potential sender must "request" "permission" to send to a receiver
*and this permission must be sought directly from the intended recipient*
It's possible to envisage a system where permission might be sought from
an entity (acting for the receiver) which IS (usually) "on".
Granted. So I guess I get to raise a secondary objection now? :-)
A number of people have suggested systems that make the request for
permission to speak so brief that it is impossible to send spam via
that mechanism.
There are a couple problems with that.
1. I'm not sure it's possible. I've gotten spam that was nothing but
a URL in the subject.
2. By decreasing the information passed, you make it far harder for
the recipient to figure out whether this is something you actually
want. If you have to followup to the message (or go to a web site)
in order to figure out whether this is a valid request, then the
spammer has just won. Their goal is to get you to pay attention--and
you just did.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg