Alan DeKok writes:
"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.
Agreed. This is a philosophical ideal; the real world does not operate
in a boolean, white-and-black mode; there are always grey areas and
compromises.
--j.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg