On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:16 PM, J C Lawrence wrote:
> As such the sender of
> an email _is_ trespassing, knowingly, and with conscious intent.
> However, the critical difference between spam and other email is that
> one has the reasonable if generic expectation of being welcomed by the
> recipient.
>
sorry, that's one point of view. the other one is that if I stand on a
street corner and you're within hearing, I don't have to shut up. if
you want quiet, you can put earplugs in your ear.
The online equivalent ot this is the argument that until you stop
delivery of a piece of e-mail, the sender doesn't know you don't want
it. If your system is open to accepting mail, I have no reason to not
send it, do I?
email is still at the equivalent of sites that used to not put
passwords on accounts but told people not to misbehave once they logged
in. we see how well that went over once enough people got on the net.
e-mail has to figure out how to protect port 25 reliably but without
locking out legitimate users. spamblocks and etc aren't the answer.
(they're part of the answer, but not the answer).
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
