On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
>
> >I run a few mail servers, and have built many more. I personally would
> >have no desire for my mail to be handled by POP3, passed in cleartext
> >across the public internet, when I simply log into
> >my machine securely (locally or remotely) and type "mail" to access my
> >email.
>
>
> There is nothing in my proposal that requires your private email to deviate from your current more secure methods of SMTP delivery.
>
Shelby, by doing things this way i get no bulk email. Noone in their
right mind would target a server with 15 users for spamming... this
happens to mail providers with millions of subscribers.
> By definition, any thing that is bulk is no longer private, because you can't control what another person will do with the same information.
>
>
Why don't we try to eliminate it all in one fell swoop... bulk email, junk
postal mail, telemarketing calls, the whole lot of it. There is an
annoying company called the social security something or other who for
years sent me certified letter after certified letter saying that I should
have one of their numbers, and please contact them.
> > Further, I am not interested in having my mail sit on someone elses
> >server.
>
> Your email would not. Only bulk email which is shared with many other people.
>
Good, because I don't want any bulk mail on my server. You can collect
all you want for me on some random server though. Not interested in
wasting either the cpu cycles or disk space it would take to deal with it.
>
> > Don't get me wrong Shelby, I HAVE a POP3 server, that I built
> >myself, for the use of friends and affiliates. Nor do I have the desire
> >to collect 2-3000 mail boxes in my lifetime, for all of the business
> >relationships I may make during this period.
>
>
> It is a wrong assumption to equate business email with bulk email.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
rant(){
echo (
I am of the opinion that I never want to be sold anything in my life. If
I want it, I can find it.
These people deploying spammers as marketing agents are no different than,
or possibly are, the people who deployed call center sweatshops as
marketing tools, and bulk mailers eating thousands of trees proclaiming
what great deals they have on cars this week. The truth is, if someone
wants to spam bad enough, they will. We could rewrite smtp 5 times, and
it would be engineered, reverse-engineered, reengineered, implemented,
modified, patched, and kludged by thousands of people for various reasons
each time. And every time one of those reasons would be spam. As long as
we live in a profit-driven society anyway. Its too bad we can't just
hold hands and sing cumbyah, but it happens that way sometimes. This has
been rehashed time and time again on this list, unfortunately, which is far
from the venue for this discussion.
Who volunteers his mail server for the spam-discussion-redirect list that
will effectivly be the /dev/null for spam related topics that arrive at
the ietf? For those of you unfamiliar with UNIX or any of its
derivatives, /dev/null is a storage device for important internal system
processes. What say you IETF? Can we engineer a solution to this nasty
problem?
) | /bin/mail -s spam ietf@ietf.org
sleep 12
rant
}
rant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is a wrong assumption to equate commercial email with bulk email.
>
rant
>
> > Seems easier than a complete rewrite
> >and redeployment of SMTP, which is what would be necessary inthis
> >instance.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, but respectfully, this has *NOTHING* to do with SMTP. SMTP is not involved and not changed.
>
Therin lies the flaw in your plan, as smtp must continually change in a
distributed fashion in order to effectively reduce the amount of
egregiously time-wasting email that flows through its veins.
> Shelby Moore
> http://AntiViotic.com
>
>
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/