You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Solution to Spam

  • From: Walter Ian Kaye < >
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:02:45 -0700
At 05:23p +0000 06/27/2003, Mark McCarron didst inscribe upon an electronic papyrus:

Legitimate business will be uneffect by the system as they will have special access.
How would Big Brother differentiate legitimate from fly by night?
What if someone legitimate trying to register with Big Brother can't because they're blocked? And how can we trust Big Brother not to become a source of spam itself? We can't even trust "legitimate" Hotmail not to spam; look at your mail sigs. It's disgusting.


*> Close monitoring will be kept on all mailing lists at all times.

*ROTFL* You don't have any idea on the number of mailing lists out
there, do you? Exactly WHO will monitor them and WHO will decide?
Mark's response:

The 'GIEIS' system will require a dedicated staff of possibly up to 500 people. Combine this with user reports and filters that parse messages looking for suspicious subjects/text and its going to be pretty secure. If we would be saving the industry almost $12 Billion a year, then there would be ample budget from that to run an EXTREMELY large dedicated centre.
What exactly do you mean by close monitoring of mailing lists? Do you mean that you'll have dedicated staff for reading every obscure mailing list on the planet? And if a billion people want to send a mass mailing, does that mean all billion people must register with Big Brother?


 > Yesterday, in excess of 500 ISPs were contacted and informed about the
 > system.  The response has been unbelievable to say the least with 90%
 > reporting immediatly that they would adopt such a system.

Sorry, but I am sure this is a lie and I will stick to that until proved
otherwise.

Mark's response:

What?  Is it so difficult to email 500 companies???  Really!
90% positive response? You haven't even gotten that here; more like the reverse. Perhaps you were just very vague in your "contact" so the ISP representatives did not fully grasp the implications and only responded in a "wishful" sense; and as someone who has allegedly done scientific research, you must surely know that that would completely invalidate your test results.

BTW, I was glad to see that your Web page addressed the graphic-vs-text issue; however, there is still a large ambiguity regarding what end users must deal with versus what ISPs must deal with.


-Walter




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>