I am nearing the end of my allow time to respond, so if I do not respond in
future, it doesn't mean I agree :)
below...
2. Regarding additional burden on *legitimate* bulk message *senders*:
a. These senders are much, much fewer than the # of receivers suffering
from spam. Any incremental cost on the few is justified.
yeah, well good luck convincing *them* of that. especially when you can't
even convince *us* of that.
You ("us" not including me and perhaps some others) are apparently "them", so I
see no need for the word "especially".
Further, there is no need to convince the minority. Majority wins. If
enforcers successfully block all bulk email with my proposal (as an internet
STD) sanctioning it, then receivers (the minority) will dictate the outcome.
I assert that even if 50% spam is not bad enough to make the 500 million rise
up, just wait until it is 90+%, which again I assert won't be too long from now.
b. The senders are already quite resource savvy, else they would not be
sending *legitimate* bulk (in statistical significance) messages. I
doubt the incremental cost is significant to cause failure.
let's see. it doesn't cost the spammers much to send bulk mail...
Oh it costs spammer something. They are definitely more resource savvy than
the majority, which was my point. The burden on the minority is less
important, if the majority is making big gains from the proposal.
so why
do you assume that the costs are significant to legitimate senders?
They have to maintain mailing list servers, mailing list databases, manage
support for subscribers, handle incoming spam, etc.. All things which an
average (the majority) individual user of email doesn't have to do (or won't
bother to do).
c. And compare this burden to the burden they have with dealing with
spam, which would be eliminated by this proposal. If spam isn't
eliminated, then they need not adopt the proposal.
most of the burden of dealing with spam is on the recipient, not the sender.
Agreed currently. But not once my proposal succeeded, which is a correction I
made after making this point #c above. Point #c is invalid. Please remove it.
apparently you think that legitimate senders should pay for the cost of
lessening the burden on recipients from illegitimate senders.
Insert "bulk" after legitimate and illegitimate, then I agree with your
statement.
The reason is because *legitimate* bulk message senders are going to pay one
way or the other soon. It is like the old Fram oil filter commercial in USA,
"Either pay me now (replace filter) or pay me later (replace motor)"
As the rate of spam approaches 90% or 99%, receivers are going to opt to block
all bulk email, irregardless of whether my proposal is in place. They won't
have any other choice, else quit using email.
Now that is profound prediction!
why do I think
you're not likely to get much support for that view from the senders?
Oh yes to be expected that human nature tends to manicure (defend) their own
feet instead of watching where they are going and what they will soon bump into.
Shelby Moore
http://AntiViotic.com