Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Kee Hinckley <nazgul@somewhere.com> wrote:
>Could we please cancel this thread (and not cc it to wishlist@microsoft.com).

Actually, I think that they are certainly a party with an interest in this 
discussion, especially when talk turns to the possibility of a lawsuit due to 
their defaulting to send HTML-burdened E-mail... I think that's very timely 
given their lawsuits filed earlier this week against numerous spammers, on the 
basis of wasted, unwanted mail volume.

>People use formatted email.  Whether they need, or want to is besides 
>the point.  They do.  

Actually, if they are sending it that way WITHOUT NEEDING OR WANTING TO, and if 
the result is a 3-5x increase in the byte volume of their E-mails, then it VERY 
MUCH is within 'the point'.  It is as much an ISP cost issue (maybe even more of 
a cost issue) than the spam issue is.

>No amount of talking is going to set back the 
>clock to the days of the ascii internet.  

I'm not proposing that.  I'm just offering a modest proposal... that 
unsolicited, first-contact E-mail be restricted BY DEFAULT from containing HTML, 
attachments, and encoding... and that those restrictions can be subsequently 
lifted by the recipients for senders of their choice.  Control, cost 
containment, choice, and responsibility.

Few other proposals I've seen discussed would yield such a quick payback for 
such an easy, compatible, incrementally viable implementation.

>Let's talk about things that can actually be changed, 

Oh, this DEFINITELY falls into that category!!

>And seriously.  Even if you believe that blocking HTML is feasible. 

It is VERY, VERY feasible.  In fact, it's probably the EASIEST idea to implement 
(and the easiest for a SINGLE, ENLIGHTENED ISP to implement all by themselves if 
necessary) of anything we've discussed here.  (And it's not "blocking", it's 
merely SELECTIVE PERMITTING, based on the recipient/sender address pair).

>It isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference in the amount 
>of spam that gets sent.  Spammers do their best to make their email 
>look like real email to the end user.  

The spam I get here uses ALL MANNER OF TRICKS that legitimate E-mail does not 
use.  While it IS true that they HOPE that the end users won't notice the 
sleight of hand, anything we can do to put a spotlight on the ruse is probably a 
good move.

>If the end user gets email as plain text, then spammers will send plain text.  
This isn't rocket science--it's basic economics.

Spam in plain text will deny spammers many of their most cherished tricks.  It 
makes it harder to make a living as a spammer.  That also (basic economics!) 
ought to reduce spam volume.

>At that point, Gordon falls back on the argument that at least we 
>will have saved in the number of *bytes* sent.  Which is true.  But 
>saving bytes is not the charter of this group.

The main motivation on the part of ISPs in controlling spam is to save bytes.  
So I think their interest in the area is a lot more than you'd suggest.

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg