The problem I have with sender-authentication schemes is they are coverting
an open, useful, free and unfettered email solution into something only Big
Brother and Big Corporations would ever want.
Already, my home ISP blocks sending out emails using my business email
address -- because I could be a spammer!
People in totalitarian regimes have relied on anonymity in order to share
information. Those who squeal on corruption, discuss serious political
issues, or simply want to discuss sensitive items without being identified
will lose a useful tool at the bequest of businesses.
Like the war on terror, this war on spam is causing us to lose focus and
make the assumption that the solution is to punish everyone, restrict
everyone's freedom, and monitor everyone's actions since we may all be
spammers.
Back in 1992, I didn't have any spam problems, and big business hadn't yet
adopted email for its business communications. Spam has grown with business
use, and now businesses are telling us that we all have to change and suffer
because of the mess they created. This is not fair, and it won't even work.
An AOL employee has just been arrested for selling customer information to
spammers, and all ISPs have long had this problem (how long did it take for
you to receive your first spam with your new email account?).
Businesses should instead leave the free email paradigm and return to a
private, secure channel for their communications. You get what you pay for,
and email has always been insecure, and these schemes don't even solve that
problem. There are already commercial services like Yozons, CertifiedMail,
Zixit and Tumbleweed that offer secure messaging in a professional manner.
Corporations should stop using free email if they want to remain legitimate,
just like they don't contact us over CB radios or via bulletin boards.
To stop spammers, we need to educate users that they shouldn't ever buy
anything sent to them via email because legitimate businesses don't sell
their products this way. They shouldn't click on links in email and they
shouldn't open attachments. They should realize that email is insecure and
provides no confidentialitity like traditional mail, despite the similar
sounding name. Such information could be provided with every new computer
and every new ISP account.
To stop spammers, we need to buy their products and then follow the money
until they are arrested. Given a $25,000 per convicted spammer prize, along
with a $50,000 per conviction penalty to help pay for it, I'm sure spammers
would be given up quickly. They are not an honest lot and are always
looking to make a buck off the pain of others.
To stop spammers, Microsoft needs to fix its Outlook and Outlook Express so
that reading an email cannot trigger any actions. There's no reason why a
data email should ever be executable and send out more emails without your
knowledge. Only a fool would have programmed such a "feature" in.
Anyway, the idea is that monitoring all of our email activity and forcing us
into narrow uses for email is not the answer. Email wants to be free. The
Internet servers more than corporate interests and certainly more than U.S.
interests. Businesses should leave and use trusted delivery systems from
private providers before they should require that we lose our rights.
Sincerely,
David Wall