RE: [Asrg] Spam as a symptom of sender/recipient imbalance.

["Peter Kay" <[e-mail]>]

I think you're right on. I believe that sooner or later, some type of
C/R will be the way email gets passed around. One may argue (and have a
good case) to say that today's C/R are clunky and don't work well, but
ultimately they empower the recipient in a way that addresses the
imbalance.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Cameron [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:27 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Asrg] Spam as a symptom of sender/recipient imbalance.
> 
> 
> In tackling the definition of spam, perhaps it would be 
> useful to have a somewhat different view in which spam is considered
> a symptom of a deeper problem.   
> 
> Here is a statement I have been using to motivate e-mail 
> research work here at SFU.
> 
> "Current e-mail standards create an imbalance between senders 
> and recipients, providing senders with the power to capture the 
> attention of any recipient they so desire, while giving 
> recipients little control over what appears in their inbox. 
> The imbalance becomes 
> most severe when the sender is a computer program sending out 
> bulk unsolicited e-mail (spam)."
> 
> The notion of sender/recipient imbalance then becomes a 
> theory that at once helps explain spam and also predicts that 
> the problem of spam may be mitigated by addressing the 
> imbalance. The two general ways of doing this are: (a) 
> reducing the power of 
> senders and (b) increasing the power of recipients.   Most
> anti-spam proposals can be characterized as addressing one 
> or both of these objectives, typically at the MTA or network 
> infrastructure level for approach (a) or at the MUA level for 
> approach (b).
> 
> Focussing on the sender/recipient imbalance may help avoid 
> value judgments/arguments as to whether a particular instance
> of annoying e-mail is or is not spam.   As many have pointed
> out, there is a large grey area.   Care must be taken to avoid
> moving into this grey area in deploying MTA or network-level 
> approaches that either classify messages as spam or senders
> as spammers.    But if these classification approaches are
> augmented by other means that address the sender/recipient 
> imbalance, then there may be no need to move into the grey 
> area at the infrastructure levels.
> 
> Personally, I am interested in approach (b): empowering recipients 
> through increased automation at the MUA.   I see challenge-response 
> systems as a first step in this automation, but consider that 
> there may 
> be other benefits to MUA-level automation that ought also to 
> be explored. For example, one scenario in our work is that 
> C/R systems can be leveraged to perform other useful 
> functions such as automated change-of-address negotiation 
> (whitelist/address book updating).
> 
> Nevertheless, it is very important that MTA and network-based
> approaches also be developed.    In the short term, MUA-based
> approaches will not help with network traffic reduction.
> 
> Over the long term, we will continue to need asynchronous 
> text-based messaging.  But we will need to ensure that the 
> great power of automation that senders may employ in 
> generating messages is matched by a corresponding power of 
> recipients to automate responses when and as appropriate.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 
> 
> 


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