on 9/22/02 7:31 AM, Phil Tanny at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If we each had control over our own inboxes, it wouldn't matter what the > mindset of the spammers was. > > For example, how do you keep pesky door to door salesman out of your house? > > You don't change their mindset, you have a lock on your front door. Right?
White lists don't really solve anything. Regardless of how effective they might be - or might not, my experience is mixed - they create additional work and expense for the recipient. I have to buy the technology (or pay for it to be embedded in my mail software) and I have to spend considerable time in setting up the software and making sure it works properly. They also make it difficult - impossible, if they're working correctly - for individuals who I don't know to contact me. Over the last 11 years I've been happy to receive email from people I don't know - but who shared a personal or business interest. My mail box isn't meant to be a barrier to the outside world - why should I turn it into one? Further, they don't do anything to stop the flow of spam that's taking up more and more bandwidth - creating both real costs for us as individuals and organizations, and impeding the operation of the net. Arguably, the only benefit of white lists is to the spammer. At present, a fair number of people who are in a position to do something meaningful to stop spam - including a large number of marketers - seem to think that it's not a problem, since people can just delete the mail and go on - no harm, no foul. If we adopt white lists, that just gives spammers even greater cover since they can argue that people who don't want it have an option to prevent its receipt. I'd go so far as to say that white lists turn email and much of the Internet on its head, simply so spammers can send spam. And, in reference to your original post, no, that's not a cost I'm willing to pay. If we really want to stop spam, we need to lobby for effective laws that will put the cost - in the form of fines - back on the spammers. The TCPA offers a useful model. While we're at it, we should toss in something about forging headers, and perhaps slap the hands of people hosting open relays and/or insecure servers. Legal action will be taken to eliminate spam - I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but the first congress person who gets enough complaints about some of the filth passing through email is going to see this as a great populist issue that will appeal to a wide swath of the electorate. Recent history with government and technically oriented laws suggests that we - and I mean all of us - won't be happy with the results. So, we can keep having polite little philosophical debates like this, or we can actually do something useful to educate lawmakers and lobby for meaningful laws. Regards, Dale _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
