[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols

2003-12-22 13:19:17
 "Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com> wrote:
"license" smells of contract law - IANAL. I dare say a lawyer might have a
view on this.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:44, Alan DeKok wrote:
  Exactly.  In many cases, "license" is a synonym for "permission".

In law, "license" means "permission". Having a license literally means you 
have been given permission.

Software licenses are commonly also attempting to be contracts. Whether they 
actually become contracts depends on a lot of factors, including how you 
purchased the software, what you have done since receiving it, whether you 
have relied on it  to do something you would not otherwise have been able to 
do, and which state and country you are in.

As for the subject of this thread, it seems to me that the comparison between 
protocols per se is misguided and although I haven't read the whole thread, 
I'm surprised the topic has lasted this long. Spam (not SPAM, the meat 
product) is worse in SMTP because it's the protocol that allows the spammer 
to put the message in the face of the target. Change the protocol without 
changing the very nature of email, and spammers will still find ways to 
exploit it.

Take, for example, the MS network popup messaging protocol (whose name I don't 
recall). It also put the message in the face of the targets. It remained 
unabused for a long time because it's a low profile protocol that spammers 
simply hadn't considered. When they realised it was there, they started 
exploiting it rapidly. As it happened, the protocol wasn't very important, so 
it was either jettisonned entirely or blocked at routers in most places.

Troy Rollo                              Chairman, CAUBE.AU
asrg(_at_)troy(_dot_)rollo(_dot_)name                   Executive Director, 

Asrg mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>