RE: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> [mailto:asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
> Laird Breyer
> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:24 PM
> To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions
>
>
> On Dec 27 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
> > Well, if one wants to resist the idea one merely builds 
> scenarios out
> > anything left unsaid which lead to the conclusion that the idea is
> > untenable.
> Generally IMHO, if what is unsaid is large enough to drive a truck
> through it's worth narrowing down the unsaid parts. 
>
> What bothers me here with your approach is that you're not attacking
> the spam problem, you're attacking the user apathy problem and
> *hoping* that this will somehow solve the spam problem. But there's no
> guidance as to what users will or should do if they wake up 
> from their 
> apathy. 
Everything that has been done to date is a massive failure.

It's either too difficult for the average end user, or too expensive
for the N/ISP to implement, or, has not gained the trust of major networks.

The amount of actual mitigation that takes place is
small in comparison to the problem. Turn off all that mitigation
and you'd barely notice it, if at all.

SpamAssasin et. al. works FOR YOU. It doesn't work for my dad on AOL,
my friend on Comcast, or my SO on RCN, friends on MCI, etc. etc.

You can only say "get another ISP" for so long and it becomes
a clear indicator of your level of understanding of the problem
itself, the mechanics, and the history. 

-M<


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