Discuss digest, Vol 1 #762 - 6 msgs

[richb at pioneer.ci.net (Rich Braun)]

Jerry Feldman wrote:
> Microsoft and Yahoo are partnering to find ways to block SPAM.

I'm wary of companies whose main revenues are software subscriptions and
advertising being the primary motivators behind tools to "block" spam.  It's
in their commercial interests to block everyone *else's* email but to impose
their valuable messages on the public.  They'll come up with a way to ensure
that their messages are "solicited" by us but their competitors' messages are
"unsolicited".  Maybe I'm cynical but that's how business works.

Later, Jerry wrote:
> I think that state laws against SPAM are not enough. We need as a
> minimum a national law or even an international legal agreement.

Joe <joseph at etards.net responded:
>> SPAM can be fought successfully at the community level.

Jerry rejoined with:
> I think that you are very correct.

Ahem.  Which is it?  Personally, I think the international legal agreement
approach is the only one that will work.  We've gone *way* past the point
where laissez-faire will work; email as a communications medium is rapidly
being destroyed by the spam deluge.  As someone pointed out before, the only
effective response that a person can make "at the community level" is to
abandon an email address; in effect, everyone's number will be unlisted. 
That's how the younger generation has already adapted:  any of my under-25
acquaintances tends to view an email address as a temporary thing, to be used
for a few months and cast aside along with last season's clothing.

I think this can only affect society in the same way:  acquaintances will come
and go as quickly as email addresses; to get rid of someone, simply avoid
sending them the new email address (and cell phone number, also a temporary
thing).

Us over-40 folk have a sentimental attachment to decade-old email addresses
and land-line phone numbers that simply is not shared by the next generation.

-rich