Am I wasting my time?

[Miss Betsy]

Merry Christmas!

I, too, have my pet theory, utilizing all known technology - but the techies say it is not feasible.

The major problem is that there is no we (tinw) on the internet. What you are proposing requires cooperation from thousands of server admins. And nobody is particularly interested because the competent ones are satisfied with their blocking methods at this time.

It may seem like a selfish attitude, but it is in keeping with the internet free spirit: you can do what you want to do, but I am not interested. If you want to communicate with me, then you have to be polite. My server, my rules, your choice.

Miss Betsy

[PGTips91]

Merry Christmas!

I, too, have my pet theory, utilizing all known technology - but the techies say it is not feasible.

The major problem is that there is no we (tinw) on the internet.  What you are proposing requires cooperation from thousands of server admins.  And nobody is particularly interested because the competent ones are satisfied with their blocking methods at this time.

It may seem like a selfish attitude, but it is in keeping with the internet free spirit: you can do what you want to do, but I am not interested.  If you want to communicate with me, then you have to be polite.  My server, my rules, your choice.

38425[/snapback]

Thank you Miss Betsy, both for your seasons greeting and for your assistance to me in teasing out the ramifications of my proposal on eliminating spam.

"the techies say is is not feasible", why?

One of my mother's poems she taught me goes something like this: --

They said it couldn't be done, but he for one wouldn't say so until he had tried.

He settled right in with a trace of a grin on his face, if he worried he hid it.

He tackled the job they said couldn't be done, and he did it.

It is interesting that, looking for that poem using Google I found one reference only that concluded with "and he did it", the rest all said "and he couldn't do it" or the like. Just shows that it is easier to be negative than to achieve something positive.

"you can do what you want to do, but I am not interested."

Well I'm not about to change that head on. Instead, what I propose will work by positive motivation where it counts - those providing the bandwidth should be easily interested if they can remove the flood of spam. Also businesses, I believe, would be more than interested in a secure email service that eliminated the problem of spam with its waste of employee time and risk of viruses, etc. This would not only deal with spam as such but would mean that it would be possible to publish email addresses without the worry of attracting spam - a decided benefit - and would protect the less technical from all those viruses and scams as well. Once there was a choice of secure/insecure email system I think it would not be long before demand was strong for it. Supply will always follow strong demand in a market.

You realise that the World Wide Web is only one of many possible networks on the Internet, bringing a number of protocols together to provide connectivity to people world wide. Currently emails occupy a space in this continuum. Really all I am saying is that a new 'secure email' space needs to be set up with stricter rules and sanctions than the current system. Since we are talking about theoretical space there can be no 'technical' problem that cannot potentially be provided for and overcome. I, for one, would like to know what the techies think is insoluble so that I, or someone else, can propose a theoretical solution.

Paul

[StevenUnderwood]

those providing the bandwidth should be easily interested if they can remove the flood of spam.

38431[/snapback]

Paul, In the corporate world, most ISP's get paid for the amount of bandwidth a customer uses. Some have pushed the theory that this is one of the reasons they are not all that interested in slowing the flow, they are benefitting.

Also businesses, I believe, would be more than interested in a secure email service that eliminated the problem of spam with its waste of employee time and risk of viruses, etc. This would not only deal with spam as such but would mean that it would be possible to publish email addresses without the worry of attracting spam - a decided benefit - and would protect the less technical from all those viruses and scams as well. Once there was a choice of secure/insecure email system I think it would not be long before demand was strong for it. Supply will always follow strong demand in a market.

38431[/snapback]

Compatibility is always the key. No business will convert to a new technology until it has a foothold. Look at Linux...I have been seeing that it will be the "next big thing" for almost 10 years now, yet there are still few places where it is not more than a pet project or used in one or two installations. There is no reason to convert if you can not use it to contact the bulk of your contacts.

Also there are many companies that may never upgrade. My place of work has JUST started a project to upgrade our Win98 (even a couple Win3.11) machines and WinNT servers which have not been supported for some time. There has just never been an economic reason to do the upgrade, the current systems work fine. I know that after this upgrade, our infrastructure will be pretty much locked for the next 5 years due to the problems of getting any changes qualified.

Really all I am saying is that a new 'secure email' space needs to be set up with stricter rules and sanctions than the current system. Since we are talking about theoretical space there can be no 'technical' problem that cannot potentially be provided for and overcome. I, for one, would like to know what the techies think is insoluble so that I, or someone else, can propose a theoretical solution.

38431[/snapback]

I think people are usually not referring to technical problem but more problems of acceptance and implementation. You are correct that with a new protocol, technical difficulties would be relatively easy to overcome. Getting it used is the difficulty. As stated, some people can not upgrade, some people won't upgrade, and some people don't want to upgrade. You would need to overcome all of these. And if past tries are any indication, the spammers will be there first. They seem to be much quicker to mold to new needs (possibly a smaller group is the cause, possibly they are more motivated).

These discussions have all been made before. Look at the problems raised in these forums about SPF for instance. You will need to probably use the Google search function and look for discussions more than a year old if my memory serves. Also, look in the newsgroup archives from before these forums were created and possibly since..I have not kept up there.

[agsteele]

With respect to Spamvertised sites, however, the situation is reverse, with many of them hosted in China. However SpamCop does not concern itself with these other than to record the information and make it available to interested parties.

38417[/snapback]

This raises an interesting question about philosophy...

As I understand, SpamCop's purpose was defined as identifying the sources of spam and thus providing the end user with a means for identifying potential spam based on an algorithm. The blocklist does this admirably. That's what SC was established to do.

The task of getting rid of spammers websites has not been part of SpamCop's primary mission. Recognising a spamervertised website was easy enough using the parser but it hasn't been SpamCop's role to do more than advise the hosting company. Indeed, I'm not sure what else SpamCop or anyone else can do than advise the hosting company. But since some are making money from the spammer's site - they ignore the advice. Others provide free space which is misused (eg Geocities) and they are swamped by the complaints and do eventually catch up.

So, IMO, the SpamCop BL does just what it was set up to do and it does it well. I can't see what other action could be taken to tackle spammer's websites using a DNS block list.

Andrew

[Miss Betsy]

There are two good replies, but I would like to emphasize two points.

Both the fact that the people (like sprint) who offer the highest level don't care because it doesn't affect them and they make money and the fact that it is very difficult to get people to change are the biggest obstacles. And I know that you would devise something to get them to change, but there is little evidence that there could be any kind of effective international agreement.

It is not the technical aspect (though to some extent you lose some of the functionality depending on what system you use) that the techies oppose. It is that what you are describing is the way that blocklists work. The sender sends a message and the receiver checks it out and decides that it doesn't want to receive it - there are different reasons based on different blocklists. And it hasn't diminished the flow of spam, but it does, for those who use blocklists, keep the spam out of their network.

And I have already stated what IMHO is the reason and the solution to making the system control spam. For instance, if enough people who read Fred Langa told him they were not subscribing any longer unless he did something about seeing that his mailing list were delivered in a way that it doesn't get on blocklists, then perhaps he would do whatever it takes. Like using a non-spamming server, responded to mistaken spamcop reports politely to the reporter, reported them to spamcop, etc. etc. I forget all the things he doesn't do to keep his mailing list off blocklists. The same with Comcast and RR - many people would be appalled to know that 'their' ISP was also allowing porn spam to spew through their servers or that their laxness in keeping their computers safe is contributing to others receiving porn spam.

Miss Betsy

[tacoma43]

Maybe I've just had a bad day...sorry for the unnecessary post.

[Wazoo]

Can anybody offer any advice or encouragement to continue?  What keeps you motivated?  Why do you think this is worth the effort?

41892[/snapback]

Merged this post into (just one of the many) existing Topics/Discussions on the same subject. PM sent to advise of the move/merge.