Second, if spammers are unable to pull a lot of the tricks and deceptions that
they do at present, I believe that a lot of spam that presently "works"
economically will no longer be viable.
Please offer evidence. Take a large body of spam. Determine what
percentage of the messages depend on obfuscation to make their sale.
Be sure to separate out obfuscation for the purpose of avoiding
filters from obfuscation for the purpose of fooling users.
It matters little... if they can't obfuscate to avoid filters, and therefore
get
taken out by the filters, it doesn't matter whether they might or might not
have
tricked the user IF the spam had been delivered.
Consider whether their are alternative tricks they could play in text (e.g.
http://www(_dot_)ebay(_dot_)com(_at_)192(_dot_)168(_dot_)1(_dot_)80/foo is just
as likely to fool most
users as a "hidden" link url).
Well, less, but I agree that SOME are still there.
But it's a SUBSET.
I'm sure the results would be valuable to everyone on the list, whether or
not
they agree with your proposal.
If someone here is interested in funding the detailed study, I'd be glad to
carry it out.
You keep saying "I believe". I've responded with absolute numbers
detailing how many users make active use of HTML.
Well, yes and no. Your numbers are based upon a notion of what might or might
not be "active use". It also doesn't address the issue of "degree of
importance" or whether people (given the choice of "spam or [occasional]
boldface" would still pick the boldface and accept the spam.
So while your numbers provide one data point, I'm not convinced that they
really
represent anything very decisive.
A number of people have provided perfectly believable scenarios as to why a
first-contact system won't work.
I've been in the business long enough to see a **lot** of people present
scenarios about why some new proposals "won't work". That's hardly new.
Highly
esteemed scientists used to insist that heavier-than-air flight isn't workable,
either. Clearly, for whatever reason, they were wrong.
Present your counter scenario. Explain how the system will work in
detail, not in vague terms.
The reason the terms are fairly vague is because there are a large number of
implementation choices that can be made in a variety of ways. Turning the
knobs
and tweaking the controls is something that gets done during implementation,
according to the needs and desires of the client paying for the work. There is
no NEED to develop one fixed and rigid scenario ahead of time. Indeed, that's
part of the advantage of this approach.
I've suggested that you haven't thought through the architecture
requirements of your system.
I don't think there ARE much in the way of basic "architectural" requirements
which are anything much more than trivial. I don't put a lot more stock in
your
"suggestions" than you seem to put in my "beliefs". :-)
The proper response would be to write up an architecture document and do some
research.
I'd be glad to do that if somebody would like to fund the project. Many of you
other folks here may be salaried, but I'm not, unfortunately.
You claim to have extensive experience with that kind of thing.
Yup. I've been involved in various kinds of product development for a LONG
time.
P.S. And cut with the innuendo about people who disagree with you
*wanting* spam to not get solved. That's pure crap,
No, what's crap is misrepresenting what I said. Please don't misquote me (even
by suggestion). Thanks (in advance).
The reason you're getting pushback is because people *also* want an internet
which is easy and powerful to use for everyone--not just techies.
There's NOTHING technically exotic or hard-to-understand about what I propose.
Making it "easy and powerful to use" is purely a matter of design choices made
during the implementation and integration with existing systems, but is hardly
rocket science.
You don't think your screwing that up. We do.
I take it that's the "royal we". Sorry, anyhow, I don't agree.
Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg