On June 26, 2003 at 16:47 vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com (Vernon
Schryver) wrote:
From: Barry Shein <bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com>
...
> This was sent to nanog earlier in the day. Asrg contributors would help
> the (US jurisdiction) FTC's "Do Not Call" (phone spam) service roll-out
> by letting Richard Callahan know how to keep the eventual AT&T GS mails
> from being some systems' false-positive, and not delivered.
They're not paying me so why should I care?
Oh, don't tell me, he's decided he deserves a chunk of net subscriber
fees to subsidize the delivery. Get in line!
...
That's still nonsense.
Why thank you for the collegial consideration!
Your customers are paying you, not AT&T or
other third parties (unless you are a "free" provider).
Kind of like how I pay for my telephone service? So you ought to be
able to call me for free so long as I want your call? Does AT&T know
about this?
If your
customers don't want confirmation mail, whether from the FTC's DNC
machinery or some mailing list, then you should not accept it.
Well, that's how it's worked.
But then again without change that's also the system that let all this
massive spam breed.
Foolish me I thought we were here to propose CHANGES which might
ameliorate the spam problem.
If
your customers don't pay you enough to deal with their email including
the FTC's DNC confirmations, then you should either raise your rates
or fire those customers that are too expensive to deal with.
And if you don't have time or inclination to deal with all the spam
then you should hire a full-time secretary to pre-screen your email so
you only see what you want and otherwise just be quiet about it. It's
not a problem, you're just too poor.
Ah, so easy to throw the other guy's money around!
What if such an account as you describe, honestly, would cost $100/mo
or more, w/o connectivity fees?
When is spam a problem? When you have to pay someone full-time to sort
through your email or when I'm forced to raise prices to a level which
kills the technology just so AT&T can deliver all the mail they want
for free?
I think a major point of why we are all here is because, in various
ways, massive spamming is making e-mail as a technology untenable as
conceived. That would include its presumed or at least desireable
economics.
And who are you to say I should charge my customers more to cover the
costs of bulk-mailers? Why not charge THE BULK MAILERS. Doh!
You're just advocating for receiver pays.
Which is your right.
But just so we're all clear.
..
Gak, he's even trying to get free advice on how to get millions of
dollars worth of free mailing reliably.
That is not at all what he asked. He only asked how to avoid your
filters that you have installed at the behest of your customers so
that the mail that your customers are paying you to deliver is in
fact delivered to them.
Well, not really, he was trying to put as many network operators on
notice to try to let his stuff through.
But if you want to fly into wherever his office is and have a sit down
with him explaining what he needs to do, research potential problems,
and write it all up in a nice report for them to use as a set of
guidelines and even take responsibility for your recommendations all
at your own expense why Vernon by all means go for it!
The point is: Stop being willfully ignorant.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg