0. General - Research Survey (was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research

[Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.]

todd(_dot_)shepel(_at_)telus(_dot_)net wrote:
> 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


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg