Hi Sandeep,
I truly appreciate your personal effort within the ASWG and the ASWG at large.
Sorry about all the verbage in advance, hopefully some will find my
contemplations worthwhile reading; <- this is my theme.
I have been lurking on the IETF ASWG list for a while now. I completed your
survey @ https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?
owner=sandeep&id=66
. Just some thoughts for future survey enhancements and future discussion on
the ASWG board.
WRT your survey, Concent is ALL important; no "if", "and", ior "but". My
opinion cannot be swayed on this matter. However, with concent, is a
difficult expectation that the content of [0|1|2|#|only the next
#|some|most|all|general 3rd party|this particular 3rd party|did I miss any?
(literally|figurately)|time dependant combinations of fore-mentioned] future
communications will be well received.
?????
This, IMHO, is one of three fatal flaws in the whole SMTP communications
model, that most seem to have to live with after volenteering an email
address; quite a lot for the simple "submit" function to assume. More
importantly, it is this communications model several recognize erroneous and
therefore exploitable.
The unfortunate problem becomes one of, if a recepient receives content, at
any time, which is not as expected, the original mis-understood concentual
expectation, finally becomes recognizably compromised BY THE RECIPIENT ONLY.
With compromised trust in communication, the "unsubscribe" function becomes
equally questionable.
Both a sender and recepient's wants & needs change with time. It is not
reasonable to expect sender & recepients wants and needs to always necessary
stay well alined; if those wants and needs were ever aligned? To make things
worse, automated senders have no reason to care if alignment is not achieved
with this mailout, for this particular [solicited|unsolicited] address;
because "they" take a stake in the feedom the possession of an email address
MIGHT afford, hoping the next message will entise, the next time, ad
infinium. There is nothing to lose, because the system is fundamently broken
in "their" favor.
2nd fatal flaw. Isn't SMTP a form of TCP/IP? It seems to me, the problem has
become one of SMTP exhibiting better characteristics of UDP. Going back to
the stone-age, when someone says "UHGG! Enuf!" or just walks away, true
communications cease thereafter. TCP/IP SMTP acknowledges at a system
level, "ACK, ya I got the message". Is this consent enough that this
communication and future communications are acceptable? Challenge Response,
fundamentally has the right idea. Problems are: the sender really has NO
motivation to stop communicating to a known entity, only to find better
methods by which to continue to appeal/harrass until the objective of the
communications are achieved, all the while leaving the burden of continuing to
walk away with the recipient, with very limited legal recourse.
In my mind, it would be great, if I could just respond to a message I well
received with, "thanx! That stuff you said about Blah was GREAT! Tell me
more.", This sets an expectation that future communications are potentially
equally well received.
For lack of full message response, or communications to the effect of "UHGG!
Enuf", I hold, further messages need necessary cease there after, for this
particular content, IP, sender, sender's company or ????. Very very thick
trouble. Too sadly, some senders receiving feedback/or no feedback to the
effect of [thanx|enuf|subscribe|unsubscribe|blah|*], use this as an
opportunity to pro-actively re-tune the next message ad-infinium; welcome to
inbox clutter. Thanx, but no thanx.
Please don't try to read my mind for me about what I need to see in my inbox
next; If I let you know, I will let you know.
3rd fault or 12 ish. World Economics, Politics, & Law in the New Geo-Spanning
Cyber-Fontier. Not enough cowboys, virtual bullets, virtual jurisdiction,
super fast & smart horses, too many "public?" posts to nail the next message
to, too many fly-by-night cyber-saloons and peasant-educated shoddy-built-pig-
barns to hide masked villians in/behind. This needs to change. I wish I had
a simple answer for this one. sigh :(
Though their are a number of able-bodied groups finally meeting in their town
halls and schools with pitch forks and stones in arms, crafting new devices.
This is a very important start! :)
Todd.
Quoting Sandeep Krishnamurthy <sandeep(_at_)u(_dot_)washington(_dot_)edu>:
Hi!
Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey
about Spam. The survey is at-
https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66
[If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4]
Thanks.
Best,
Sandeep
Home Page: http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep
Read my publications at-
http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/publist3.htm
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg