From: Larry Marks <larry(_dot_)marks(_at_)barberry(_dot_)com>
If you don't want to consent to handle e-mail traffic, then don't. If
you do, then handle it properly and deliver legitimate mail. "Common
consent" does not extend the right to say you will handle mail and then
to refuse. That's just fraud.
That and related statements are quite familiar and representative
of the views of bulk mail advertisers whose efforts to deliver
unsolicited advertising have been affected by various sorts of
filtering.
You are aguing by character assasination. Shame on you. I have nothing
to do with bulk mailing industry, either as a participant or as a
consultant.
I tried to not attack your character by not attributing your words
to you. Regardless of your sterling character, your words are
exactly what the professional bulk mailers say when they've been
caught spamming.
...
The views I am expressing here are those of a small business person
trying to use the Internet. There are a lot of us out there. We are not
being well served. Of course, I could go out and form my own ISP, but
then some aj would just put it on a blacklist.
If you had been following the spam wars, you'd have often heard that
paragraph from bazillions of business people caught sending spam.
Please note that I'm not saying you have ever sent any spam. I have
personally heard those words on the phone and in email from people
who have sent me unsolicited bulk email and then stumbled on the web
pages that expose my personal blacklist. Usually those words are
preceded or followed by a heated denial that the junk mail I received
was spam or an insistent claim that I'm lying and that I went to a
trade show and dropped my business card into a fishbowl.
Those statements all assume that what matters is the
transmission of mail and not the wishes of mail recipients to not
receive spam.
How about that? Imagine someone actually wanting the mail to go through.
How rash of me.
Again, you are elevating your desire to get your mail through to your
targets' mailboxes above your targets' right to not receive it,
including by delegating filtering to their ISPs. That is wrong for
all mail including non-spam. You have no standing to complain about
your targets' mail filtering. You and your ISP have no business
complaining to your targets' ISPs. Your targets are free to reject
mail (or faxes or telephone calls) on any random or capricious criteria
such from people whose last names contain 'r' and 's'.
As I said earlier in this thread, this is not an either/or situation. It
is possible to make the system work and stop spam. I have even suggested
one non-invasive approach on which no one has commented. I do not
understand how you can believe that making e-mail unreliable represents
some kind of victory over spam.
I have only vague recollections that you suggested something too
familiar with authentication, and that it was shot down as usual.
If my recollections are wrong, what is the gist of your idea?
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg