> From: "Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@???>
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:10:33 +0100
>
> > Sure, but if direct delivery is done by a machine that is not connected
> > to a static IP address 24 hours a day, then how can net abuse be handled.
> > i.e. how can we make people accountable for their internet actions.
>
> So find another way. Just because people's freedom to perform direct
> delivery makes life difficult for you is no reason to compromise that
> freedom. In this case it's especially bad to even consider doing so,
> since direct delivery is one of the most useful parts of SMTP transport
> for reasons expressed by many people in this thread.
In this country, we test and license motor vehicles and individuals,
and each is assigned a unique ID. Cars must display this unique license,
and it must be lit for readability in the dark. From your arguments,
it sounds like you would consider these laws to be an infringement on peoples
freedoms to drive whatever they think is safe, in whatever manner thay want.
I have not suggested that we infringe on peoples rights.
I am suggesting that everyone who does direct connection
be registered in some way, like making sure they have a DNS entry.
Reverse dns checking is a great idea, and since we do not
have customers here, only employees, we plan on implementing this as
soon as possible.
> > > There is only one way of dealing with spam in a way that doesn't
> > > compromise individual freedom, and that is to provide customers with
> > > individual web-controlled filters so that *they* decide what is
> > > passed through to them and what is junked.
> >
> > This assumes that all SPAM __can__ be detected by a filter,
> > that all SPAMMERS will somehow mark their SPAM so users can
> > readily junk SPAM on demand. If you have such a filter, please
> > share it with the rest of us.
>
> No it doesn't. In fact it doesn't assume anything about the nature
> of spam at all, and nor should it, because spam is different things
> for different people, and there is nothing to distinguish spam from
> fully solicited delivery other than that each customer knows whether
> he has solicited an item or not. Since only the customer knows that,
> and since as you say there is nothing universal that the ISP can use
> to distinguish spam from not-spam, the only sensible answer is to let
> customers make their own choice as to what to block.
I understand your point, but under your rules, the decision to block can
only happen after the receipt of the SPAM. If I block their sender address,
the SPAMMER can just change ISP's, and send the exact same SPAM again,
and it will get through, again. As __the customer__, I find this disgusting.
How do I, the customer, stop ALL advertisements from clogging my in box?
If that SPAMMER has a DNS entry, then I can merely block all incoming
email from that particular machine. Easy.
> And I'd go further than that. The law lags online practice by years
> and years, needless to say, but nevertheless the similarity of some
> online systems with traditional physical mechanisms is sufficiently
> high that legal precedent can apply. If the postman intercepts a
> person's mail and junks it on the basis that "I know it's junk", he
> would very rapidly end up in the slammer. The mail is after all
> addressed not to the postman, nor to the postal delivery service,
> but to the addressee. It's the addressee's mail, and the carrier
> has no right to junk it except under the addressee's instructions.
But, with surface mail, the sender pays money to send an advertisement.
With email, the recipient pays to receive it. In this country, junk FAXes
have been outlawed --- it uses the recipients resources (paper, time, keeps
valid FAXes from being delivered, etc). Junk Email should also be outlawed.
If we start charging all senders of email on a per byte basis,
then my guess is SPAM would be cut by 95%. But this __would__ be
an infrinement on my rights since I do not send SPAM.
> A positive approach to the problem seems much more helpful to everyone
> concerned, ie. the spamming "advertiser", ISP and end-recipient. Offer
> customer filtering as a product feature that distinguishes your ISP
> from the hoards of others. Keep counts of messages that are deleted
> by customer choice, ...
What? Keep count of messages that are deleted? I do not care
to have my ISP know which messages I delete and which I keep.
Its none of their business. Monitoring which mail I like and dislike
__is__ an infringment of my rights.
A much more simple approach would be to register each and every machine
that wants to send email. Then, if that machine is used in an abusive
manner, some kind of action can be taken.
Reverse dns checking would solve much of this.
--
* This is sent by the exim-users mailing list. To unsubscribe send a
mail with subject "unsubscribe" to exim-users-request@???
* Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/
