From: Shelby Moore <coolpage(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
...
And I tell *MY* UIDL from Keith Moore's UIDL from Vernon Schreyer's UIDL how?
How did I get involved in this?
15 years ago I had a boss that finally taught me to never use real
names in examples or scenarios even when I was sure I was being
nice. It's better to invent names, and to take care that they're
far from anything real. You must assume that someone will take
you literally in bad ways you'll never predict.
...
Ironically you mention Vernon (is that a hint?), because if I remember
correctly he runs the DCC and recently had a similar unexplained
overtly negative reaction recently when I tried to contact him regarding
some improvements to DCC. I suppose it is possible that your negative
responses here may be explained by similar vested interest with him.
Maybe, but in fairness I won't immediately assume the worst ethics of you.
"Worst ethics"?
Mr. Moore contacted to ask me to sign a non-disclosure agreement so
that I might learn how to make the DCC "effective" based on his new
"intellectual property." He was also interested in buying copies of
DCC data. My responses started cool and eventually became as "overtly"
negative as I could without calling him names. I told him that he
had disclosed nothing of his intellectual property to me, that there
is no plausible chance we might ever do any business, that I wished
he would stop sending me mail, that I did not (and do not) want to
hear about his intellectual property, and that his lawyers should be
aware that my document retention policy for email is "forever in a
bank vault" and that I've been known to take formal notes during
telephone calls. Perhaps Mr. Moore's harping on his "intellectual
property" and an NDA sent me into a raving paranoid break, but many
of us know real life stories that started similarly and turned out
poorly from some points of view.
He sent a few more messages after my request that he stop, but eventually
quit. If this triggers more, I'll file them with the others, not in
file 13 but in that bank vault. Media's cheap today.
I'm writting this only to urge caution. Some people are innocent and
well meaning and only appear otherwise to us paranoids (split personality
and delusions of royal or editorial grandeur as well). Other people
really are dangerous. A few years dealing with spammers or with
patents and intellectual property experts should make anyone spooky.
I realize the most dangerous people don't seem dangerous. Maybe that
proves Mr. Moore's virtue, or not.
BTW, in case you think my anti-spam business depends on this proposal,
that would be false assumption. Actually one of the key advantages
of my anti-spam algorithm (the automatic white listing of legitimate
bulk email) would be rendered unnecessary if this proposal was put
into effect.
I hope I don't need to go read about that automatic white listing
and so forth. I find Mr. Moore's technical writing as inpenetrable
and painful to read as my own. For now I'll assume that the IETF
archives provide sufficient protection.
...
So you are indeed heavily involved with the DCC! Yes I know that
is a weakness in the way the DCC measures bulk, but that is irrelevant
to the point above.
Please notice my resolute failure to ask about that weakness. I've
no clue what Mr. Moor's intellecutal property is, except that I suspect
it is similar to some ideas related to counting mail from IP addresses
mentioned by others in public...and conveniently archived by Google.
If I did not realize it was happening, then I would not have created
http://AntiViotic.com . I'd be using the DCC instead. I also wouldn't
have approached Vernon about improving the DCC (only to be turned away
in nasty tone).
That's me, the ol' evil, nasty, non-team playing, selfish, negative,
unfair, anti-comerz, kook himself.
Another thing that Mr. Moore convinced me during our exchanges is that
his notions about the nature of the DCC works differ significantly
from mine. There's nothing wrong with that, since without Mr. Moore's
intellectual property, the DCC is not "effective" or whatever.
I hope the fact that every time I turn around I bump into another
person demanding attention for the Ultimate Wonderful Final Perfect
Solution to The Spam Problem is a good sign instead of a perverted
maturation of the anti-spam industry.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com