IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] Summary/outline of why the junk button idea is pre-failed

"Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortel.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <CLEWIS@nortel.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A3928C14B for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:49:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCnIPaPriRAC for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63A728C0DE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id o24Enrl12114 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:49:54 GMT
Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:49:53 -0500
Received: from [47.130.80.251] (47.130.80.251) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com (47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:49:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8FC88C.6010203@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:49:48 -0500
From: Chris Lewis <clewis@nortel.com>
Organization: Nortel
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20100302131810.GA22938@gsp.org> <4B8D3FD1.8090403@nortel.com> <BF533A28DBE487489EAB3411C5412CBE1032EE5B@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net> <41D5397E-E5B8-4508-9393-E25CB307641F@thenose.net> <4B8FC0A6.3060903@nd.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B8FC0A6.3060903@nd.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2010 14:49:53.0687 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3289270:01CABBA9]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary/outline of why the junk button idea is pre-failed
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:49:58 -0000

On 3/4/2010 9:16 AM, Paul Russell wrote:
> On 3/4/2010 08:59, Dennis Dayman wrote:
>> Interesting article
>>
>> http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=123574
>>
>
> The author is not interested in reducing or eliminating spam; he simply wants
> tools to validate his delusion that his spam is not spam.

I wouldn't be quite so harsh.  But...  He completely glosses over a 
number of fundamental differences between 1-to-many _marketing_ and what 
is essentially bidirectional communications (eg: facebook), both 
technical and social, not the least being that the marketer has an 
enormous and irresistible incentive to cheat - as they already do (eg: 
bogus "testimonials" etc).

And furthermore, if they did implement a TINS that actually functioned 
(FSVOF), I think they'd be very disappointed by the turnout.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email