Re: Principles of Spam-abatement
Dave Crocker <dcrocker <at> brandenburg.com>
2004-03-01 07:23:20 GMT
>> >> unfortunately, that act of communication _is_ the adverse side effect.
>> >> it tells the spammer that yours is an active, responsive email account.
PV> that's only true from the smtp perspective. since smtp does not encode any
PV> aspect of consent, existence implies reachability.
rogue spammers are not concerned with consent. they just want to know
that you and your address are alive. feedback gives them that
PV> however, since smtp is
PV> dead meat rotting in the sun waiting for us to figure out what to replace it
ready-fire-aim. the dead meat is what the world uses today and will
continue to use for quite some time. reports of its death are just a
When folks agree on the new mail transfer services that we need and
when we try to add them to smtp and fail, THEN we can have productive
discussions about a replacement transfer protocol. until then, calls
for a new protocol very much constitute firing before aiming.
PV> with, smtp is not relevant in a discussion of "principles" which this claims
PV> to be. (anyone who thinks that smtp can be upgraded to encode consent needs
PV> to spend a few more years Just Hitting Delete before you can sit at the
PV> grownups table.)
And everyone else needs to move from the generic reference to