Re: RIPE32 Anti-spam WG minutes (draft 1.1)
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:49:19 +0100 (MET)
> Can we please stop starting the same discussion
> and arguments over and over again? I've argued
> before that there are cases where people *are*
> interested in UCE.
Excuse me for assuming this was an *anti* spam list.
I'm not trying to revive religious discussions, but this pro spam
standpoint bothers me a lot, and I'm clearly not the only one who it
bothers. If you all find UCE is a good thing, fine, I'll unsubscribe today.
But afther this one I'll shut up about it, I find endless discussions
about as annoying as spam, only they cost less.
Sure there are enough candidates for sending junk.
Receiving is something else.
Perhaps there are a few interested in receiving on their own terms,
but are THEY prepared to PAY for that service ? Perhaps.
Are those not willing to get it to PAY for the service to OTHERS ? Surely not.
The total bill is high, devide that by the low number of interested
parties .... And I'm afraid there are no interested parties left.
Esp. when you have to let the junk to travel all the way to the receipient
before you can devide to deliver or not, the cost is there.
NO WAY AROUND IT.
Worse, you even have to filter it, adding to the cost.
(It might save download time for the customer though)
Suppose we implement the X-UCE propsal:
- we now have to transport all junk to just about the mailbox of the recipient
and decide there, most cost for the ISP are incured at that time.
- or the ISP can drop any X-UCE containing EMail, still ESMTP does not
allow this, so the ISP still incurs the cost a accepting, detecting
and dropping the mail. Nothing to be gained.
Suppose we extend ESMTP to label spam:
- Is usefull if the ISP totally blocks SPAM, but that
will not work, as spammers will not label it this way since 99% of the junk
will not be delivered.
- Still need to transport it to near the mailbox if you want the
customer to have choice, still no gain.
You cannot stop the cost of spam for the ISP this way.
> Don't think many list owners ever allow this.
> If they do, they are probably into strange things themselves.
> Such mailing lists do exist and *are* useful.
Yes, as long as they are opt in I've no problem, but then it's not spam
in my definition anymore.
Should have put it more clearly perhaps.
> Some spammers will grab legal opportunities.
*most* spammer do, PLEASE don't give them more leverage.
> Other spammers won't give a damn about laws and will
> (therefore) hide their identity and cover their tracks.
That's what a law that can hurt those who get caught comes in.
Really *hurt* them that is.
> Consumers/customers want options, not dictates.
Yes, 100% agreed BUT:
- If you have the X-UCE thing you incur the cost on the ISP, no matter
how you modify ESMTP to allow pre-emtive aborts the cost is made.
- Now add to it that over 90% of the customers do not want it.
- ISP's eventually will charge the customer for those costs
(think long term)
- suppose 1 % f the spam is wanted, now that 1% in an ideal world would
have to pay for the 100% of the costs ? surely the receivers will
run away from spam, leaving only one option: let all the customers
pay for it, so nothing changes.
Aloowing a portion of spam will give less choice, not more.
It's not a dictate, it's just economics.
Just as it is not freedom of expression but least cost for the spammer.
And I'll stand by the "spamming == stealing" slogan.
Therefore: if you want to do something about the problem you NEED to
outlaw it completely (except the opt-in stuff).
Now I'll go back in read only mode, but Piet, if you want to continue
privately,I do understand dutch.
SWA
--
--------- ____ -----
-------- / / / ___ ___ _/_ ------
------- /---- / / / / /___/ / -------
------ /____ /___/ / / /___ / --------
----- ---------
Swa Frantzen tel: +32 70 233909
Senior System Engineer fax: +32 70 233808
EUnet Belgium NV/SA http://www.Belgium.EU.net
Interleuvenlaan,5 B-3001 Leuven
