On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:48:26PM -0700, Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > Robin Lynn Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I actually had one guy get enraged, saying he wouldn't "jump thru > > hoops" just to send someone email. > I've seen this several times myself. It's usually accompanied by > something like ``spam is a problem we all have to deal with, so just > get over it''. i.e, the "misery loves company" attitude. Luckily,
i've never really heard the misery loves company argument. i normally
hear one of two arguments:
1) filters will solve everything! flurvian based filters with added
ipso facto lexxing will catch 99.768% of spams.
oddly most of these people are immune to normal buzzword speak.
2) that's not a solution! we need to add authentication to smtp!
the first argument is pointless to argue with. since spammers seem to
mainly be reacting to these people for some inexplicable reason (let's
try to get mail to people that really, really, really don't want it!),
i kind of enjoy watching the escalating war. i'm looking forward to
seeing someone graphing the cpu/memory required to process a single mail -
particularly when they graduate to neural nets or even further into ai.
on a more positive note think how far the escalation could advance
natural language parsing and ai.
the second one confuses me. tmda essentially *does* add authentication.
how do people think authentication will work if not authentication
between individuals?
kevin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] if the un could speak...
fork()'ed on 37058400 dubya (excited): "the un risks being irrelevant!"
meatspace place: home un (dejected): "it beats being irresponsible."
http://ie.suberic.net/~kevin/ (inspired by http://www.claybennett.com/)
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
