Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:34:26PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
>   If the "solutions" to spam involve still allowing spammers to
> overwhelm some people, then those solutions will just get you cursed
> by the guy who's *still* getting spammed, when everyone else things
> that the problem has gone away.

We want to do the best job we can, but no better.  Our just systems
are all designed to let 10 murderers go free to avoid punishing one
innocent person, and likewise our solution to spam.  It must let
some spam through, or it is doing too "good" a job.

Still, we wil do what we can.  The plus side is that if you could
cut spam by 3 orders of magnitude (which means I get 2 a week, btw)
you do something else to the economics of spam, namely make it 1000
times less effective, which puts a dent even in the "I can send a
million and if I get 5 responses I still do OK" logic of the spammer.

Now he has to send a billion to get 5 responses, and that's not
practical any more.

> > Sure.  But if they all spammed and you could get off right away,
> > how bad would it be?
> 
>   Bad.  That's what's happening today, and it doesn't help.

Really?  In spite of all the spam I get, I have only gotten one
overzelous mailing from a company I bought from (X10, before they
started the popup ad campaign), and in spite of giving out hundreds
of different email addresses (I use a different one each time) to
tons of companies and web sites I have done business with, I have
only seen _one_ suspected case of somebody handing my email off to
another party.

I have seen similar reports from other people.  So I would like
to hear of your reports that say the opposite.  Have there been any
studies?

Yes, I have gotten mail from companies I dealt with, without a
single exception, they have offered a working means to get me
off the mailing lists.  I've gotten more phone calls, and they are
much more annoying.

This is a non-problem.  Certainly not enough of one that we would
cripple or even consider redesigning e-mail to deal with it.

> 
>   It's 10,000 companies in the world versus little old me.  They can
> exchange information, and all decide to spam me.  They have the
> resources to send massive amounts of spam, and to deal with any
> technical or legal ramifications.

Under the definition I propose, they can't trade mailing addresses,
unless you consent to this.
> 
> 
> 
>   The fact that they want to "help" you by selling you a product is
> irrelevant.

I simply have seen no evidence of a problem here, and I get a lot of
spam and do a lot of buying online.  We should all want to see a real
study showing more than anecdotal evidence, before making any moves
in this direction.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg