Discuss digest, Vol 1 #762 - 6 msgs

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
"Rich Braun" <richb at pioneer.ci.net> wrote:

> 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.

I was going to do some selective snipping, but it would lose too much
context.

I would prefer, as I said initially, some method where the author of the
email can be validated. (eg. Digital signatures). Using this type of
authentication, the recipient can usually verify the sender. 

Currently SPAM is a big problem for all the email providers, but like
junk snail mail, legitimate businesses should have the right to use
email to send out brochures and ads. But, consumers should also have a
mechanism to enable or disable receiving this. The stuff I would like to
see blocked is email messages that are forged. 

In any case my feelings are split between the freedom of information
issue and the costs associated with SPAM taking up significant bandwidth
and server space. I think it might be less of a problem if Microsoft had
decent email servers. 
-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20030714/b9e24352/attachment.sig>