Re: Mail, not to be confused with spam...
2011-12-28 21:25:04
On 12/21/11 5:22 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:47:00PM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
> Without a solid defense of actual sources, email will continue to
> be abused. On the other hand, social networks benefit from rapid
> removal of abusive accounts, since much of their ad revenue is
> based upon unique identifiers.
Two points:
a) Most "social networks" *are* the spammers. They've been proving
this to my spamtraps for years. Many of them will prove it again
this week. b) Social networks themselves are being overrun by
fictional users, see:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39304/
Rich,
This was not about how social networks treat email, but I agree with
your point. Email lacks an authenticated identifier of the
administrative domain transmitting messages. And no, DKIM does not
fulfill this role. While social networks may be overrun by fictional
users (which is great from an ad revenue standpoint), each user is still
authenticated by the administrative domain. This authentication
(lacking with email) provides users control over who is granted access
to their inbox or content. A savvy user may also depend upon shared
relationships.
As the author observes:
"This industry is millions of dollars per year already and [shows]
roughly exponential growth," says Zhao. "I think we're still in the
early stages of this phenomenon."
This also represents a generation no longer trusting email and often
don't even have email-addresses. And yes, there are many security
vulnerabilities with proprietary social networks, especially with
respect to smartphone apps. There are also financial incentives for
fixing problems affecting users when they become apparent. Google
offers finer grain control over shared content, for example. Fix the
email authentication issue, and email could play an integral role in a
trusted social network.
-Doug
|
|