Subject: RE: Web Wait measurements; spam discussion redux From: Gordy Thompson Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 11:43:31 -0400
How the Web Was Won
Subject: RE: Web Wait measurements; spam discussion redux From: Gordy Thompson Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 11:43:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: 
References: <000701bdc32e$1d771fa0$74676420@crosbie.tiac.net>
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
List-Unsubscribe: 
Reply-To: Gordy Thompson 
Precedence: bulk
Status: O
X-Status: 

-----------> This message was posted to the ONLINE-NEWS list. <-----------

At 07:02 AM 8/9/98 -0400, xerxes wrote: 

        [much snipped]

>
> Moreover, Gordy gave us a link to a new service that should diminish the
> economic reward for spamming methods.  Reduce this enough & the
> practice should abate. 


        For the record, I "gave
us" no such link, and the sentiments imputed to me are not mine.

        I sent Scott some private email
a while back containing some interesting data points about the volume and
costs
of spam. The information =happened= to come from Bright Light Technologies,
which had assembled them as part of the case for their entry in the
unfortunate
serverside antispam arms race.

        For unfathomable reasons, he
chose to send his reply via the Online News mailing list, and included the
Bright Light URL from my original letter. I didn't, in fact, recommend that
technology to him, to this list or to anyone else, and it's breathtaking to
see
my private correspondence turned into a public endorsement of something that I
actually believe is a waste of effort and resources.

        Serverside antispam software is
the =wrong= approach: It legitimizes spam by accepting it at its source, and
continues the transfer of its costs to its recipients (who must pay -- one way
or the other -- for Star Wars gadgetry like Bright Light).

        The right approach is to
delegitimize spam at its source, by refusing network connectivity to
spam-friendly domains altogether (Paul Vixie's RBL initiative) and by giving
its unwilling recipients the right to sue for relief (the Smith bill, which
extends to junk email the Federal legislation that effectively abolished junk
faxes -- with no dreaded "government regulations", "bloated
bureaucracy" or other rhetorical bugaboos). 

==========================================================================
Gordon T. Thompson                                      gordy@nytimes.com
Manager, Internet Services                              212 556 1386
The New York Times                                      fax: 212 556 1636
  The Times and I have an arrangement: Neither of us speaks for the other.

->  ONLINE-NEWS uses Lyris mailing list software. http://www.lyris.com  <-
-> Change your list settings:  http://www.planetarynews.com/online-news <-
->   Online-News is archived: http://www.planetarynews.com/on-archive   <-
You are subscribed to online-news as: [rballard@access.digex.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this msg to leave-online-news-20155U@clio.lyris.net
SPONSOR: Knight Ridder Real Cities - http://www.realcities.com


From remuv_me@hotmail.com Sun Aug  9 16:24:33 1998
>From remuv_me@hotmail.com  Sun Aug  9 16:24:31 1998
Received: from mx03.netaddress.usa.net (mx03.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.140])
	by pony-2.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA27205
	for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:24:29 -0400 (EDT)