On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:22:03 +0800, Shelby Moore <coolpage@earthlink.net> said: > Simply define that legitimate bulk distribution of email should be done by > mechanism of each bulk distributor providing a public POP3 (and IMAP) account > or server, rather than sending the email directly. This is broken in two distinct ways: 1) I as a mail user now have to go check 150 POP servers several times a day for all the various lists I'm on - many of the lists are low-volume, but I'd have to go CHECK every day just in case something DID get posted. > In the case of a public distribution (e.g. most direct email and mailing > lists), a POP3 (and IMAP) account of user "anonymous" with password "none" > would suffice. In the case of private dissemination (private mailing lists), a > POP3 (and IMAP) server with individual accounts could be provided. Nope. even for a public list you get to keep a separate POP3 account for each subscriber - if one person has checked for postings yesterday, but another hasn't since last Tuesday, you can't feed the right list to each person. So that brings us to: 2) I as the administrator of a site that hosts 6,000 mailing lists just got the additional aggrivation of providing POP3 service for 700,000 e-mail addresses (yes, we've got that many). This includes "My password doesn't work" support and things like that. Gee thanks. > The elegance of this paradigm is that users then control the opt-in/opt-out > database, by configuring their email client to POP email from only the bulk POP > accounts they wish to subscribe to. Have you actually *TRIED* to use more than 100 POP accounts under any current mail software? > 1. Any bulk email is then spam (receiver has not opted in) and can be dealt > with by ISPs, Hosts, legislators, judiciaries, and anti-spam software. So I drop a note to 50 friends inviting them to a barbecue, and I end up in the slammer. > 2. Receivers now have uniform control over opt-in/opt-out policy without a global authority This actually means "We've pushed the headache to the recipients". > 3. Legitimate bulk senders can be insured that they or their email won't be > misclassified as spam So.. you ready to have every single eBay or Amazon customer check their POP account there every day just in case there's important mail for them? > 4. Those who send UBE can no longer claim they are legitimate or that > receiver has opted-in (ambiguity removed) and can be dealt with by ISPs, Hosts, > legislators, judiciaries, and anti-spam software. Well.. maybe. But.. > 5. With a "pull" paradigm, the load (resource usage) on the public internet, > sender, and receiver is reduced, because I venture that a majority of bulk emai > l sent would not be pulled. So let's see.. Currently, if your bank sells your e-mail address to another company, you get spammed. So instead, you'll have it so that you check your bank's POP server in case there's important mail about your mortgage. Seems like the obvious scheme is for the bank to charge the other company to put stuff in your POP mailbox. So you still get spammed... > their hands would not longer be bound by ambiquity. I realize that some vested > interests, such as direct emailers or those invested in push based mailing > lists, might resist. It's ironic that you're proposing this on a push-based mailing list provided by an organization that is probably not in a position to provide POP accounts for the 30,000 or so recipients of the the list. Baby with the bathwater, Shelby... Baby with the bathwater.
Attachment:
pgp00293.pgp
Description: PGP signature