on 9/23/02 7:35 AM, Phil Tanny at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is true. Compare this to the time you now spend filtering, fighting > spammers, dealing with spam, etc. Compare this to the expenses now > currently billed to you by your ISP and others for all the work they do > in dealing with spam. > > Both systems, the current one and white listing, involve inconvenience > and expense.
The current system is not perfect and a solution must be found. Adopting white lists - by your own admission - creates inconvenience and expense, and virtually all of that inconvenience and expense falls on individual users - many of whom are not technically prepared to accept it - and system and network operators. Almost none of the burden falls on spammers. Most already operate on a model where if even a tiny fraction of the mails get through, they can operate economically. Unless you're going to make them mandatory, some (many) people won't have white lists. That means some spam will get through, providing ample incentives for spammers to continue with their efforts. As I've demonstrated before, the end result is that you make life more difficult for the good guys, and - at best - leave the status quo for the bad guys. I think there are two points to be made about laws. First, it is possible spammers would move the bulk of their activities offshore - they already have, if the flow of mail I see from Southeast Asia and the Orient is any indication. But much of that mail is still sent by individuals in the United States, promoting goods and services (using the terms loosely...) that are sold in the United States. (Readers outside the US, please insert whatever country seems appropriate.) So long as that is the case, there is an avenue for legal action. It's a chance I'd take - especially since the current situation simply lets people operate with impunity. Second, I'm not talking about giving government more control over my life - indeed, my fear is that by failing to act and debating idealistic fantasies we will end up with laws that _do_ give the government control over my mailbox. I'm pretty sure nobody on the list thinks that's a good idea. However, I would like to use some of the government's power to assert control over my mailbox. As I pointed out earlier, there is a model for such law with the anti-junk fax laws. On the whole, it seems to work pretty well. Finally, a more philosophical point, laws would actually establish the position that what spammers are doing is wrong and has a cost to all of us. The problem with your door lock analogy, outlined in some earlier notes, is that if somebody does break into my home - lock or no lock - I can actually call the police and expect them to do something. If somebody breaks into my email box, as it now stands there is no crime. 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]
