Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html):
----snip----
After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was
what EFF was able to come to agreement on:
"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach
their intended recipients."
I disagree, out of principle.
People should have a choice. We should be implementing systems
which enforce choice (e.g. consent), rather than absolutes.
Some people may see that rejecting some small percentage of "valid"
mail gets rid of large amounts of spam. That is, in many cases, false
positives are inversely correlated with false negatives. The more you
fight to lower the false positives, the more you may increase the
false negatives.
I would rather say:
"Any spam fighting system must be designed so as to allow the
desires of the recipients to be implemented. No spam fighting system
should be designed so as to throw away any non-spam email as part of
its measures, unless the recipient of that email specifically
instructs the system to do so."
By focussing on the desires of the recipient, rather than on
absolute statements, we give ourselves more flexibility in designing
systems.
e.g. An ISP hosts 1000 spammers, and one "real" user. Everyone in
the world tells that ISP (or his upstream provider) that he's sending
too much spam, and they don't want to see *any* SMTP traffic from him.
The one "real" user is screwed, but only because everyone in the world
individually decides they don't want his mail.
In John Gilmore's philosophy, enforcing the wishes of everyone in
the world (but one) would be forbidden, because one person could no
longer send mail. Even worse, that philosophy has mandated that John
gets to make consent statements about the email I receive (I must
consent to ALL non-spam email), but I do not get to make consent
statements about my own email (I accept only PGP signed messages).
I don't find that acceptable. I would rather enforce consent than
embrace philosophical ideals. Any anti-spam system must be designed
to enforce consent, and not ideals.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg