I haven't personally tried myself to opt out. But I've read they have the form. If they told you they don't have a form to sort out junk mail for you I'd say they were full out it. I'd call the Postmaster General's office. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com> To: "Bill Cunningham" <billc44@citynet.net> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:56 PM Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued > Can you tell me where to get this form? When I spoke to the USPS, they said > they're legally obligated to deliver all junk mail addressed to me, > regardless of whether I want it. > > Now, the DMA (not the USPS) does have an opt-out list you can join, but > unfortunately that only drops about half the junk mail I get -- many local > mailers don't join the DMA because of cost. > > S > > > Bill Cunningham wrote: > > How about passing a law that makes eveyone install a BIOS patch to > > block out spam. ;-) > > > > On the serious side Vernon has a point. Even with snail mail you > > can go to the post office and the USPS will provide you with a form > > to fill out and they will not put advertisements into your mail. If > > ISPs would only do the same. As of yet, if all else fails, deleting a > > email box is easier and more effective than taking a ballbat to a > > snail mail box. > > > > --Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Vernon Schryver" <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> > > To: <ietf@ietf.org> > > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:09 AM > > Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued > > > > > >>> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > >> > >>> ... > >>> The bootstrap problem will exist no matter what scheme we decide on. > >> > >> There are many spam solutions that do not have the bootstrapping > >> problem. Examples include effective laws and honest intent and > >> action by ISPs. Before saying those are hopeless, please note that > >> the many bootstrap-limited proposals don't have proven prospects. > >> > >>> The point I was addressing was that there's been two major classes > >>> of scheme proposed ... > >> > >>> However, the partitions created by each scheme are quite > >>> complementary, ... > >> > >> Your observation of how those two solutions fit together is > >> interesting...or would be if they did not suffer from other problems. > >> > >> > >>> ... > >>>> Moore's law causes a bunch of problems for the computing idea. ... > >> > >>> It may not be as big of a problem as we think. Rough > >>> back-of-envelope calculations now: Let's say we assume a function > >>> X designed to take 10 seconds of CPU on my laptop (which has a > >>> 1.6Gz P-4 in it) to limit it to 8K messages/day. > >> > >> http://www.intel.com/home/desktop/pentium4/ suggests state of the > >> commodity art is about twice that, which lets a spammer send 16K > >> msgs/day. Moore's law is still a treadmill that you don't want to > >> fight. > >> > >>> Now, this same function will take around 2 minutes on > >>> a 133mz processor and be restricted to 800 mails/day. ... > >> > >> I would put the lower limit at around 48 MHz on 80486s, or ~8 times > >> slower than a 133 MHz Pentium. Such machines go back less than 10 > >> years. Would you expect your conservative correspondents to spend 15 > >> minutes to send you a message, or would you just white-list them? > >> Once you start white-listing, it's hard to have much enthusiasm for > >> more fancier solutions. > >> > >> > >>> Now how many people are still using a 133 system to do that much > >>> outbound mail themselves (and *NOT* just relaying all outbound mail > >>> to a smarthost)? > >> > >> I think recent FreeBSD and sendmail would still work fine at 48 MHz, > >> although you probably want to stuff the thing to the gills with 64 > >> MByte of RAM, or more if it can take it. There are many computing > >> tasks that don't need 3 GHZ and 3 GByte. > >> > >> Aren't busy smarthosts significantly busier than 80K msgs/day? > >>> From my old experience, that was true even when they were running > >> at less than 50 MHz and with perhaps 100 MByte. > >> > >> Besides, no matter what inmates of glass houses and big ISPs would > >> have you think, SMTP is a peer-to-peer protocol. A major damage spam > >> is doing is helping government commissars and ISP salescritters > >> convince people that the ancient Compuserve/AOL/Prodigy/whatever > >> dumb-terminal- connected-to-central-servers is the only way to do > >> public networking and computing. > >> > >> > > And > >>> even *MORE* to the point, what are the chances that a system that > >>> old will be upgraded software-wise to support a scheme, even if it > >>> takes zero additional CPU? ... > >> > >> Would you whitelist it for the next 10 years? If there are very > >> few, white-listing works. If not, you've got that bootstrapping > >> problem, and you've invited the white-listing camel into your tent. > >> > >> > >> Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > | | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723 > :|: :|: Network Design Consultant > :|||: :|||: Cisco Advanced Services > .:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Richardson, Texas, USA >