Re: spam

We are not going to agree.

Those who sincerely want to reduce spam are going to have to choose their
leadership: Those who brought them to technical and political failure, or
those who understand the issues that can be successfully promoted, as I
did as President of the League for Programming Freedom in the 90s.

If it is as I say, and the costs you assert are irrelevant, then you will
lose. If I am wrong, you really should have won in 1998.  No doubt the
1998 leaders think that.  No one has disputed that the costs of spam were
in fact higher in 1998 than they are now. Obviously, you had a stronger
case on the cost issue then, than now.  So, are you going to trust them
again?

Your procmailrc won't have any more effect on that issue now than it did
in 1998, after I was shouted down in 1997.  Same story, different day.
If people are so foolish as to follow Vixie and his crew again, same
result.  We will see.

Shannon's Theorem isn't a popularity contest. It is either applies to
spam, or it doesn't. True or false.  If true, it means your protocol
efforts are a waste of time.  It isn't going to go away, despite your
procmailrc.

If it is false, then I have to wonder why SMTP AUTH didn't have any effect
on spam.  Perhaps, like I alluded, the authors lost focus. I suppose that
could be the case.  Time will reveal the truth of that as well.

But no one has offered any explanation of why Shannon's Theorem doesn't
apply. They have just arm waved that it could be related to Godel's work
on Set Theory. I suppose just about any computer or information science
theorem must be "a relative of Godel's work on Set Theory". This doesn't
prove it is either wrong, or doesn't apply to the development of a
spam-free protocol. (The very name spam-free protocol sounds ridiculous).

Unless someone has something new to say, I don't see anything else to say.
People will have to decide for themselves, and take the appropriate
personal action: Start work on a "spam-free protocol", or contact me
off-list to work on productive anti-spam lobbying and start working with
the IETF to prevent standarization of gratuitous protocol changes.

                --Dean

On Wed, 28 May 2003, Rick Wesson wrote:

> dean a small note before i add you to my procmailrc
>
> > On Wed, 28 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> >
> > > You still don't seem to understand the nature of proof, arguing instead
> > > that the existence of alternatives somehow disproves a matter of fact.
> > > Again, whether or not you think that the proof is significant is a matter
> > > of opinion, not a matter of proof.
> > This is exactly true of your position, but not mine.  Seems you are
> > looking in a mirror.
> >
> > * Shannon's theorem is a fact, not an opinion.
> >
> > * The cost of disks and networks are facts, not opinions.
> >
> > * The cost of spam is a fact deduced from the costs on disks, networks and
> > computers. It is a fact, not an opinion.
> >
> > * Anti-spammers already tried to use "costs" in 1998, and lost, when
> > disks, networks, and computers were much more expensive. That is a fact,
> > not an opinion.
> >
> > Email, and thus spam, is practically a free service.  Spam costs
> > practically nothing.   That is a conclusion based on fact, not opinion.
> your conclusion is incorrect, we have to pay sysadmins to keep spam out of
> our mail boxes and in some cases prefessional services to keep spam out of
> mailboxes that are real important.
>
> just as my paper shredder and the electricity to run it cost me to process
> junk mail and garbage service to throw away the trash. buring it is not an
> option in my fair city.
>
> if you wish to continue draw conslusions through falty analysis you may
> land in my filters...
>
>
> -rick