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: "Mark McCarron" < >
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:57 +0000
> You have most of this all wrong. I don't know where most of you are getting
> your ideas from, but it seems as though you are scanning the posts I sent
> rather than reading them and taking time to study them.

Mark, the people who replied to your postings have indeed scanned them
in the correct sense of the meaning of "scan" rather than the sense
which you intended.

What it boils down to is that you want to create an incompatibility
layer in SMTP with some hand-wavey ideas about ensuring that each mail
sent is properly authenticated, for some broken definition of
"authenticated" (shall we call it "I Can't Believe It's Not
Authentication!"?). There are a large number of flaws in your proposal,
many of which have been pointed out by Der Mouse and other. Not least
among thesethe fact that it would require all mail systems everywhere on
the Internet to be upgraded or patched. And it's nothing less than
extraordinary that you feel that this could be sorted out "within a
matter of days", as you noted.

Mark's response:

There are no 'flaws' in the system. Der Mouse has been posting on what he believes the system to be, even when corrected he still reverts to his own belief. The system has been tested and tested, it works perfectly and nothing could be done to circumvent the system. I don't know where you got that idea from. Also, how hard is it to download a file and click install, I know it slightly different with unix and Linux however, its not rocket science.


Let's be clear about this: bulk mail is good or at least neutral;
unsolicited bulk mail is bad, and if your proposal is going to throw the
baby out with the bathwater, then it is not worth implementing.  But by
all means, come up with a complete solution, publish it on the web, and
we'll take a look at it - why don't you try going to the IETF, and
writing up an rfc, if you feel it's worth it?
Mark's response:

That will be done in the course of the next weeks or so, we have a lot of paper work to go through first.



> 'Mailing lists' as I said are unimportant however

Riiiight.  So because you assert that the majority of Internet users
don't use mailing lists because "they cannot use them" (apparently), you
want to excise this particular feature forever more?  Well, that's bound
to cause people to take your proposal seriously, no really :-)
Mark's response:

I was half asleep when I wrote that. What I meant to type was the majority of Internet users are NOT members of any mailing lists. Therefore, to the majority of Internet users, mailing lists are unimportant. I see you deliberatly ignored the part about them NOT being blocked. Very professional.

Mark McCarron

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess



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