On Sat, 18 May 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
> I guess I do not think that technical means have failed. What has
> happened is that the stomach of ISPs to enforce spam blocks has failed.
I agree entirely.
> Spam blocks are not to stop spam - I agree that those are doomed to
> failure. Spam blocks are to shun spammers, to cause their legitimate
> customers to abandon them, and to force compliance.
Yes. And the reason that there is so much more spam today than there was
a few years ago is because people and nets have moved from siteblocking to
filtering.
Siteblocking reduces the amount of spam sent. Filtering reduces the amount
of spam you receive. The economics of spamming and of spam fighting can be
modelled is a prisoner's dilemma. A network prisoner's dilemma has already
destroyed one useful Internet convention (keywords in HTML pages), but
email is too important to let die this way.
> The country of China is screaming about spam blocks,
I cc the Chinese Embassy in the US on all larts to the PRC (to no
appearent effect).
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
References:
|
|
