[Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The Third Response

["Mark McCarron" <[e-mail]>]

Thankyou once again for your comments.  Please find my responses in the body 
of the message.  This post relates to the 'GIEIS' Anti-Spam system which can 
be located at:

Http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis

Mark McCarron.

>At 9:46 PM +0000 6/28/03, Mark McCarron wrote:
>>This list has had this type of discussion before.
>>Those are approximately the requirements=20
>>necessary for an SSL certificate.  SSL=20
>>certificates currently last one year at about=20
>>$100/cert.  The margins are such that virtually=20
>
>
>
>>This system does not use SSL nor will it ever.  It will use (most likely) 
>>a modified version of a PGP source as the basis of it's encryption method. 
>>  Therefore, the prices you quoted are not accurate.
>
>I didn't say it would use SSL.  I said that your background check 
>requirements are approximately equivalent to those required for getting an 
>SSL certificate.  Therefore I would expect your costs to be (at a minimum) 
>the same.  However since you have a great deal of verification requirements 
>*after* purchase that Certs don't have, your costs will be a great deal 
>more.
>


Mark's Response:

SSL background checks are designed to make a profit.  The 'GIEIS' system is 
not.  Most information requests are automated between 'GIEIS' and ISP.  The 
costs would be minimal and nowhere near what you are suggesting.


>>Individuals who run mail servers for there own private use will not have 
>>access to 'GIEIS'.  They should move to an email client and connect 
>>through an ISPs 'EAS'.  Also, no credit card, no access.
>
>>If adopted by the major industry players of ISP and email, there would be 
>>nothing the rest of the world could do about it.  Even through legal 
>>challanges.  There is no law stating you cannot take all reasonable steps 
>>to protect your network.
>
>Both of these statements indicate that you are living in a very different 
>world that the rest of us.  That's not how the world functions.  You do not 
>have an accurate picture of how the email system is structured and how 
>companies do business.  As a result you have created a system that does not 
>apply to reality.
>


Mark's response:

I have created a system that spammers do not like, not only that but the 
same applies to a lot of software companies to.  Spamming is a very 
profitable business.  So profitable in fact, that they hire people to sit on 
Anti-Spam mailing lists and post nonsense all day long.  Add to this, those 
who are avocating the use of certain 'Anti-Spam' software by certain 
companies and people's agenda's become clear.  This system has been tested 
in the real world, it stopped 100,000 spam emails with 100% sucess.   Also, 
just for your information, I have been the Director of E-business for 
several major websites over the last few years and I have installed enough 
networks in my time, so I know full well how companies do business.  You 
don't seem to be absorbing the fact that I am changing the way email is 
structured.


>>This document and system is not here to pass a 'popularity' test with 
>>Internet users.  It is aimed at the large corporations with the cash-flow 
>>to support
>
>That cash flow comes because email is popular with users.  Your system 
>would make email so difficult and expensive to use that the cash flow would 
>dry up.  (Not that it's there to the extent that you seem to believe.)
>

Mark's Response:

Nonsense.  Please post your financial breakdown which supports this view.


>
>>  the system.  Not only will this system eliminate spam, but the majority 
>>of email based assaults on remote machines, chain-mail, and scam emails.  
>>The system will be between 99-100% effective and will run a zero-tolerance 
>>program.
>
>So would a world-wide dictatorship.  But that doesn't mean we want one.
>


Mark's response:

Not really an arguement now is it?


>>What is a "bonafide" website, and how do you tell?
>>
>>
>>Mark's response:
>>
>>By making the hosting company part liable under our 'Terms of Agreement' 
>>without which, they cannot send emails.  Also, further checks are done 
>>with the ISP involved, who must provide a written reference sponsoring 
>>them to 'GIEIS'.
>
>Whoa!  Now you're not only going to require registration of email servers, 
>but also of everyone who hosts a web server that corresponds to an email 
>domain!  You need to do some serious research on how email and hosting 
>really works.
>

Mark's response:

Again, I am changing the way email operates.  If I didn't know how the 
system works in the first place, how could I suggest a replacement?   Also, 
I don't see anyone posting here on how they could bypass the system.  Looks 
pretty solid to me.


>>fraudulent email of any form through forced measures.  'GIEIS' is designed 
>>to be the equivilent of a digital army.  Of course the infrastructure 
>>exists, we
>
>And I thought I was joking about the dictatorship thing.
>


Mark's response:

Under any democratic system you have the right to defend yourself.  This is 
no different.



>>  can currently send that volume, there is no problem in analysing it too. 
>>  If government agencies can perform heuristics of over 50 Million voice 
>>communications in 30 minutes
>>then analysing email will be a walk-in-the-park.
>
>I know that some people fantasize about such things (and black 
>helicopters).  But as you stated above, your experience is not on the 
>technical end.  Transporting billions of email messages without content 
>analysis is something that the internet can currently do (on a good day).  
>Analyzing them all and coordinating authentication with a centralized 
>system is not.  You'll just have to take my word on that as someone who's 
>been building mail systems for close to twenty years.
>


Mark's response:

My experience is on the technical side.  You see, when your a mathematician, 
technical subjects, especially digital communications is very easy.  Add to 
this an extensive background in network engineering, electronic engineering, 
RF communications, Microwave Communications, Lazer DXing, software 
engineering, web development, protocol development and database engineering 
not to mention my business management skills.  Then, I think you could say, 
I know what I'm talking about.  You may be 'building' mail systems, however, 
I design that type of equiptment from board level up.  Your not dealing with 
some end luser here.


>>the world already have this capability.  As for upgrading millions of 
>>users, there is already a push for the new IP standard to be
>>implemented by the US Military.  It would be no different than this, give 
>>it 6
>
>By the military?  IPv6 has been "pushed" for years now by lots of people 
>(hadn't heard about the military though).  The fact that it has not been 
>implemented is in fact often used as an example of why proposals like yours 
>are bound to fail.
>


Mark's Response:

Shows us how much you keep on top of this subject.  The US military from 
2004 will require IPv6 compatibility.  Please refer to reuters for the press 
release on this.



>>Social and political concerns are of no interest.  It is technically 
>>feasible,
>
>Email is a social phenomenon, not a technical one.  Anyone who thinks that 
>any solution can be deployed that does not take social and political 
>constraints into account needs to do a little work in the real world.


Mark's response:

Please list some 'political' constraints.  I would like to see those.  Also, 
as far as the end user is concerned the only difference they will notice 
will be a graphic being downloaded and a delay between emails.  It would 
take longer to send a message via Hotmail's web based interface and since 
they have over 200 Million accounts, I think society in large has already 
proved that point for me.

Mark McCarron.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg