North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Horrible Service Agreements
- From: Vadim Antonov
- Date: Mon Dec 01 23:48:47 1997
John R. Levine wrote:
> The problem is that it is of great value
> to me that any of the 100 million legitimate users on the net can
> easily send me e-mail and I can respond to them equally easily, and a
> "solution" that cuts them out to get rid of the spammers is cutting
> off your nose, both ears, and about nine fingers, to spite your face.
That's one big mistake. Before anybody will easily send you e-mail
he has to get your address from somewhere and determine somehow that
the person is interested in hearing from you. That process can just
as well include obtaining personal or community authorization.
> Neither can the existing SMTP mail network, unless you want to overlay
> a crypto system on that.
That's what i'm calling for, instead of asking politicans and lawyers
to come and save us from ourselves.
> But you could do that with usenet as well if
> you wanted to.
Yes, but it is dying for other reasons, too. For one, it doesn't
scale. There's no particular reason to perpetuate that silliness.
> Besides, as soon as the communities got large enough to be
> interesting, you'd find spam leaking in via providers who value short
> term profit over long term interests, same as now.
My point is: provides should deliver bytes, not play police. The
communities should have tools for self-policing. If you want to
participate in an "open" community where everyone can join, you're
welcome; most of us would want to participate in a bit more closed
> Spam is a social
> problem, not a technical one, which is why technical solutions will
> never be more than a stopgap.
The lack of freedom of press for those who don't own the press also
was a social problem. As well as lack of clean water.
Are you're going to tell that political methods solved those problems?
To solve them the societies needed the technology first.
Spam has no political solution, as long as there's no technology to
enforce it. The good news is, with the appropriate technology there's
no need for legistlation or anti-spam activism.
> There's lots of other places to discuss spam, anyone who doesn't already
> know what they are is welcome to e-mail me for a list, or visit
Thank you for playing a search engine. I'm subscribed to NANOG and talk
about things which are discussed here. If I wanted to participate in
pointless discussions, I would join the socially-bent antispam lists.
As of now, I consider spam an operational problem which calls for
technological solution. As such it is quite relevant in NANOG.