RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] The eminent victory of spam

[Russell Horn <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:40 -0600, Mike Miller wrote:

> You are speculating.  I don't find your argument convincing, but I'm not 
> saying that you are definitely wrong.

It may be speculation - but I'm not alone in it.
        
          "The Internet has become what it is because of freedom of
        communication. Open discussion is what gives it value. There
        should be no cost for particular services, and email should be
        free and accessible to all. This will disenfranchise people. 
        
          It won't reduce spam directly. AOL is already good at managing
        spam issues, and Yahoo is getting better." - Richard Cox, CIO @
        Spamhaus
        
Spamhaus is probably the most respected and authorotative source on spam
there is.
        
          "So a "business class" email will go straight to an AOL-
        subscriber's inbox marked with a stamp saying "AOL Certified
        Email" while a free email will have to run the gamut of AOL spam
        filters. Free mails may also have images and web links removed."
        -  The Register
        
          "Under the plan, senders of e-mail will be charged fees
        ranging from one-quarter of a cent up to one cent to get
        messages through to AOL and Yahoo users. Despite the low fees,
        the service is likely to generate huge amounts of money for AOL
        and Yahoo." - The BBC

So all the speculation I can see is that this is about revenue
generation, not spam prevention.

Forgive me for being cynical but I really see this as a callus attempt
to make cash that has little to do with deterring spammers.

It reminds me a lot of this post that used to float around on usenet and
get posted whenever someone suggested a _new_ way of stopping spam.

-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-

You Personally advocate a

( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't
work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea,
and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state
before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate
    potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email
    addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with
    spammers
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with
    Microsoft
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
    been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
(x) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a fascist for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn
    your house down!



_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion