Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...

On June 5, 2003 at 08:54 dja2003@hotpop.com (Dave Aronson) wrote:
 > Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
 > 
 >  > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote:
 >  >  > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN
 >  >  > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming.
 >  >
 >  > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk mailing"
 >  > as spamming.
 >  >
 >  > I realize I won't get consensus on that here.
 > 
 > At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means.  By the 
 > definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely 
 > automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send email at 
 > all, of course)), this very list is bulk.  So is every other.  So are 
 > any alerts anybody signs up for.  Where do YOU draw the line?

All of it, although still useful I suspect even subscription mailing
lists will have to evolve, probably into some sort of pull technology.

One problem, for example, are mailing lists (and so-called white-hat
bulk emailers) who never clean up their lists and just bounce user
unknowns at servers all day.

Why should they bother? There's little or no cost to them to just keep
sending to those defunct accts, the cost of maintaining the lists
would be vastly higher than just ignoring the bounces.

More and more I'm seeing "white-hat" bulk mailings from Fortune 100
companies whose return addresses are designed to not return, pointed
at hosts with non-existant or non-functioning MX's so you get to just
keep trying to return the mess of User Unknowns they generated every
30 minutes for 3 days or whatever until they finally time out.

As a parallel, it's not like the post office will deliver your paper
mail for free just because you asked the other side to send it.

The entire model is deeply flawed.

		 ...skipping...

 >  > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, the OTHER
 >  > guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of tax money is
 >  > essential to civilization!
 > 
 > On that we can agree!  Just remember that it works on both sides of the 
 > table: "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree!"

Well, as an ISP I'm often that fellow behind the tree.

Particularly so long as this non-stop rush to see who goes broke last
continues.

 >  > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's
 >  > just a matter of time.

 > This system is indeed absolutely doomed, but I don't agree that fees are 
 > the only way to fix it.

Well, you know where your keyboard is, propose something else to
control scaling other than cost.

I fear that most people kinda stop at "but I don't agree that fees..."
for a reason, they know they don't like the idea of fees but don't
really have anything else to suggest as a model.

Unfortunately a lot of the problems in the world come down to either
baking more bread or organizing bread lines.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg