On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:46:51AM -0400, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote
I've managed to keep mostly quiet up to now, but I have to say I'm
disturbed at the extremism implied by some of the reactions to the
ESPC proposal (which, for the record, I know nothing about beyond
what I read today on the web site).
You admit to knowing nothing about ESPC. I'll give you credit for
that. ESPC are spammers-in-pinstripe-suits. Most of them have been in
MAPS-RBL at one time or another. That is *BAD*. Getting MAPS-RBL to
list someone ranks just below getting Jean Chretien to join the war on
Sadam in terms of difficulty. Some of the ESPC members have sued their
way out of MAPS-RBL. That is *REALLY BAD*. These outfits define spam
as "that-which-we-do-not-do". The extremely visceral reaction is due to
the companies presenting it.
However, if we want to achieve consensus on a solution, it really
behooves us to consider the interests of *all* of the legitimate
senders of email, including some who are rather different from most
of us individuals.
Farmers guarding the henhouse do *NOT* need consensus support from
"the legitimate fox community".
It seems obvious that the ESPC is an attempt by those who self-define
as legitimate commercial emailers to separate themselves from spam well
enough to construct discriminating solutions. We may well argue with
how some of them define legitimate commercial email, but it is only by
hashing out those definitions that we are going to solve this problem.
(I have talked with enough of these people to know that what they want
most is a Very Clear Line not to cross, but they are competitively
disadvantaged if they draw that line more competitively than the next
guy, and thus badly need a consensus-based Line.)
They damn well know what the "Very Clear Line" is; if I didn't ask for
their garbage, they should not send it. Period. End of story.
If we neglect their interest
Just like farmers guarding the henhouse neglect the interests of "the
legitimate fox community".
in favor of blacklists that prevent 20% of their customers from
receiving their messages, we will never converge on a universal
solution, because some very big companies will perceive themselves
as having no choice but to fight in court against our "solutions".
Welcome to the coming battle for control of your inbox. Here's a few
facts of life...
- there is a small market for confirmed opt-in mailing lists
- the dot-COM-ers of the late 1990's all jumped in at once
- there isn't enough business to support them all
- in addition to a small amount of legitimate business, they also send
out a lot of unsolicited garbage, for which they get paid; that's
what keeps them going financially
- if they stop sending out the unsolicited portion of their emailings,
(doesn't matter if it's voluntary or blocked by DNSbls) most members
of the ESPC will be financially ruined
- *THE VERY SURVIVAL* of most members of the ESPC depends on their
continuing ability to JamSpamDownYourThroat. People don't like that
garbage in their inboxes any more than they like telemarketers
calling during supper. Therefore the *ONLY* way that ESPC and their
ilk can survive is by making "campaign contributions" to "the best
legislators that money can buy" in hopes of buying laws that
prohibit blocking email from ESPC members.
It seems to me that everyone on the ASRG list should be *welcoming* the
effort that ESPC seems to represent, and that we (the technical
community) should be engaging in critical but respectful discussions
about the details. To think that the IETF can "solve" this problem in
a way that is unacceptable to the ESPC members is to grossly overstate
the influence of the IETF in today's Internet.
There are ways around that. If blocking is outlawed in your country...
1) Get a regular email account at your ISP with a small quota, say 2
megabytes.
2) Watch it fill up with spam in a few days.
3) Get a spam-protected account that you can access via SSL webmail or
ssh, in a foreign country
The ESPC can pound away at your "official" email address all day long,
and they'll get "mailbox full, try again later" messages. Meanwhile,
you can have an "unofficial" email address that actually works for
personal communication.
Remember that behind every DoubleClick stand dozens of Citibanks,
Lufthansas, and Wal-marts trying to communicate with their opt-in
customers. I'd hate to see the IETF try to fight them all.
My Idea for Getting Wanted Email Through
========================================
Enough of my criticisms; have I got a better solution? What if all
those millions of recipients *REALLY* *REALLY* *REALLY* want those
"newsletters", etc? Personally, I think that claim is a sick joke on
par with claiming that people love to have their supper interrupted by
telemarketers. However, I'm willing to give e-marketers the opportunity
to prove me wrong.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, all those people on the
"Millions CDs" really *DID* want those ads. There is a very simple
solution that would not require any conferences, or standards, or
legislation.
The email marketers could set up their own "legitimate commercial
email delivery" ISP, which they would control, and willing "newsletter
subscribers" could join that ISP. Not only will they guarantee delivery
of their messages to willing subscribers, but those people who buy stock
early in the new ISP will MAKE_MONEY_FAST as the stock shoots up through
the roof when millions of newsletter-starved subscribers come crawling
in on their hands and knees, begging to be allowed to join up. The
financial carnage amongst today's big ISPs will be horrendous when
people find out about all the "exciting offers" they've been missing and
abandon the big names in droves.
If e-marketers are really telling the truth about all their millions of
eager "double-opt-in-subscribers", this is your opportunity to...
- guarantee email delivery *TO WILLING RECIPIENTS ONLY*
- and make a financial killing
- and prove that you aren't out to JamSpamDownTheThroats of unwilling
recipients
I'm even willing to be there to cut the ribbon at the opening ceremony
for that ISP. OK e-marketers, ***PUT UP OR SHUT UP***.
--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg