Wave of the Future (Spam)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue Jun 19 19:25:43 2001

I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem that it is. I agree that SPAM
is terribly annoying, but can't comprehend why it can't be dealt with from the
INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol rules such that mail only
allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one destinee,
either in the "to" field or the CC field, it simply pitches it in the bit
bucket. Spammers love the current situation, because their own bandwidth isn't
even consumed by the wide distribution of some bit of nonsense advertising.

If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet done,
after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.

The fact that the internet community or its governing bodies haven't figured
this out is a symptom of the fact that they WANT people to be able to SPAM
anonymously. At the risk of offending the purists, I'd say it's up to us to get
off the silly notion that we're going to be able to preserve anonymity on the
internet in favor of preventing the waste of gazillions of gigabits per second
of bandwidth for unpaid advertising. Even the snail-mail SPAM is paid-for.

It should be a requirement for an email message to get through even ONE server
beyond its point of origin, that the message have the real point of origin in it
and that the point of origin be listed in the text of the message as well as in
the header. Any message in which the originator is not named and traceable via
FINGER, with a validated account, can simply be dropped. It is easy enough to
reject unwanted mail, provided you have a list of acceptable sources.

THERE HAS GOT TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY on the internet. If your name, and home
address were in every message you send, you would probably not send unsolicited
email. If someone found you spoofing addresses in order to support spamming
with, 2^n messages, they should be awarded 2^n bucks, which you should pay, with
your 20 hour-per-day labor at $0.50/hour for however long it takes.
Additionally, you should be fined 2^n bucks per bit, for wasting the bandwidth.

If you don't want to surrender your anonymity, we'll simply all have to put up
with the SPAM. Now, I get a bit of SPAM from time to time, maybe as much as 20%
of my mail, but it's pretty easy to recognize and delete. What annoys me is
that it takes more bandwidth to reject the stuff than simply to delete it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo_at_siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, John Allain wrote:
> > In the case of Marketing, it may Seem like a moronic
> > thing is being used as a cover-up for a predatory
> > practice... all I can say is SOMEtimes with Mktg what
> > you really got there are morons*
> >
> > In this case charging for the online access is truly a moaner.
> > They just need the 30 days for processing.
> The silly-assed thing is that they have to go through more work if you
> mail it in. It would be great if they got deluged with mail-in requests.
> At any rate, I think charging to be added to the block lists violates the
> spirit of the law they are trying to "uphold". Some Senator who isn't
> busy promoting his/her own self interests needs to be made aware of this.
> Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
Received on Tue Jun 19 2001 - 19:25:43 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:59 BST