> > The question is "how do we stop that from happening"? > > I see your two desires - unfettered, untracked, anonymous > access - and the ability to stop folks who are abusing the system - as mutually > exclusive. > > If I can access 'the system' anonymously, then I can send out > spam and you can't find (thus, stop) me.
You're missing a step: the no-spam list. With that in place, then it becomes a violation to send unsolicited spam to people who have registered their wish not to receive spam. Complaint comes in from recipient to ISP who permitted entry of the spam ... ISP refers to (30 day limited details; for this use only) logs of email rec'd from IP's it controls, tracks mailing to an IP - and an account - and culprit is identified. ISP does nothing 'x' number of times = license suspended; keeps ignoring = license cancelled. I'm talking about getting rid of 80% of it. There will always be exceptions, unfortunately. Bear in mind that spam's nature is exponential growth. Today we're getting 10x what we got last year - and that's a trend that sooner or later will demand a solution. I'm worried that if a solution that serves us isn't implemented, we'll get one that serves our rulers, e.g. postage stamps for email and/or positive identification and permanent records. The no-spam list approach can make a difference without draconian measures. > > First of all, regardless of what happens next, we need a rule that > > says we have a right to not be subjected to unwanted advertising, > > solicitations and dangerous mail. Without that, there is no > basis to > > proceed. > > Kinda like the advertisements at the front of DVDs. And billboards on > the highways. And full page ads in the newspaper. And banner > ads on Web sites. I don't want any of that...... Oh, wait. That's a separate issue. This is more like junk calls and faxes, where the sender is literally stealing our resources (machine cycles, storage space, time and attention) and effectively forcing us to install software to block his garbage, which costs in other ways. On the other junk we're exposed to, my theory (belief) is that we'd all be much better off without in-our-face advertising of any sort. Advertising is a resource, very valuable when needed, but worthless and very annoying when not needed - which is most of the time. If it were up to me, I'd banish it all to the Internet and invite people search when they want to buy something. Now, I know that the argument is advertising fuels our economy, but I say we don't need that kind of fuel, even if it means slowing things down. Besides, we've got a ton of other things to do with the economy that we're not doing as it is. > > I will attempt to get past this by saying that, for the most part, > > rules are in place regarding the same situation as it applies to cell > > phones and faxes, which are just different devices that handle digital > > transmissions. Thus, my first proposition would be to institute the > > same mechanics for Internet based digital transmissions (the no-spam > > list). I would hold the relative success with cell phones and faxes is > > an example of an approach that more or less works - at least knocking > > down the volume considerably by getting honest business people who are > > just taking advantage of something that's free and readily available > > to them. > > But the difference is that the sender has to pay for cell > phone and fax spam. Maybe not a lot, but there is still a definitive cost involved. > Spam costs zilch, particularly if you're relying on pwned > Windows machines. Free email is a good thing, especially for poor folks, and we should keep it free. You know darn well there are going to be forces at work to ruin it, spam is one such, but not the only. Look at our phone bills and all those taxes ... > > That leaves us with a smaller group to deal with: those who will break > > the rules for their purposes, be they promotional/financial or > > destructive. > > > > At this point, we turn to the ISP's, the Internet license holders who > > are receiving incoming traffic at the local level to respect the > > shared no-spam list within a certain threshold, with their license at > > risk. > > I thought we needed anonymous access... so how is the ISP going to find > me if I'm anonymous? I suspect I'm missing something in your proposal. See above on limited record keeping at the ISP level for this purpose. Beyond say, 30 days, ISP cannot keep records. Both sides accommodated. > I still think a few frequent flyer miles and a box of shells would be > the least expensive and most effective method. /sigh/ ? Bill > Whil _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
