Subject: Setting the record straight re spam, Usenet/Email, the Web etc From: ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:25:13 -0500

Kristine Loosley  said:

> At 09:40 AM 2/5/96 -0500, Daniel Dern wrote (as part of a much longer post):
> >I'll bet you a nickel that the volume of unsolicited junk email
> >continues to grow

> Hmmm. Define "grow" in a meaningful sense.
Ummm.  20-150 such messages per week.

>  I agree that it will grow, don't
> necessarily believe the sky will fall as a result of its growth.  As for the
Well, AOL users have a 550 message limit, I believe.  How long before junk
keeps users from getting legit messages?

> market forces... that has been my point from the beginning: The market will
> speak. It will become unprofitable or technologically difficult to spam and
> it will die a natural death. Or it won't and you'll have to resort to the
> old delete button 
We're not arguing here...

> Now, Daniel, now you are getting at what I really think is the most
> interesting part of this whole thread on spamming. That is, the group of
> net.vigilantes that rule at newsgoups like n.a.n-a.m.  I spent a year there
> one day and -- MAN OH MAN -- what a nightmare.
FYI, I disagree with the 'vigilantes' characterization. Nobody is forcing
any sites to accept third-party cancels.  Each site's sysadmin chooses
to or not to.

> I'm going out on a limb here, and I will admit up front that I have no
> statistics to back this up (so sue me). But here is my somewhat educated and
> experienced gut feeling, and a prediction: Net vigilantes are dinosaurs and
> they're going the way of the dinosaurs now.
Disagree, but time will tell...

> There, I said it. Heresy? Perhaps. Ad hominen? Not meant to be. Just an
> observation. 
No ad hominem here.  Time will tell...

> Let me clarify. One to two years ago I think the core of purist net cops
> ruled the show.
Two years ago there was almost no 'cancel' activity (ignoring Dick Depew,
who did it originally in a way that was NOT welcomed).  But then, there
was negligible spamming of Usenet that long ago.

** This is why I am pretty sure you posted this msg. dpd
>  Daniel himself had the time to read through newsgroups
> where my company posted information -- in direct response to questions --
> about access numbers for Internet service. In a very polite and helpful way,
> he predicted at that point that my company would get torn up by
> anti-commercialists. He was wrong. His was the only complaint.  Now, I will
> admit at the time to quaking in my shoes. I felt like I was really going out
> on a limb to plot a marketing strategy that included posting to the "access
> wanted" types of newsgropus advertising access for sale.  I expected to be
> flamed. I wasn't, it turns out, but I expected it.

I stand by my semi-remembered actions; it sure seemed, at the time, that
you were posting disprotionately and excessively.  Now suppose that 
everybody, or even lots of people, had been doing so similarly... 
alt.internet.access.wanted would have quickly become unusable. That
"suppose lots of people did it" continues to be [my] litmus test.

> My oh my how times have changed. Today, marketing rules the WWW, if not the
My commentary did not include the Web, deliberately, as the Web is
a "go to" medium, not a 'postage-due distribution' one like Usenet or email.

> newsgroups (which, IMHO are also becoming dinosaurs though they have been
> given new life by tools like Netscape's news reader). I would not hesitate
> to post such a message, not for a second.
Would you hesitate to post half a dozen or a dozen within the same day?
If your now-greater-in-number competitors also did so, would you feel
less happy?  

More to the point, if your legitimate postings were lost in the noise
of 1001 off-topic and often completely bozo posts, how would you feel?

> The difference between then and now is that the Internet of old was a
> government and university sponsored animal, designed for not-for-profit use
> and quite appropriately protected by people like Daniel from being overrun
> and disabled by intrusive business-types.

Kris, here I must object.  A) You were posting to Usenet back then, which
is/was 1) not the Internet and 2) Not gummint/edu sponsored.  B) Two years
ago the Internet was already as much if nor more so non-government/edu based.
C) I have not, not, not been 'protecting' [the Internet, etc] from being
munged by "intrusive business-types."  I ... and my fellow net.guardians...
have been trying to protect Usenet and email from irresponsible and
inappropriate users of all types, which has included and continues to
include not only a some business-types but also government personnel,
religious zealots, random fanatics, newbies, inept programmers, and
sincere people.  E.g., the steady stream of "Make Money Fast" posts,
Krazy Kevin Lipsitz, the "GOod Times Virus" junk, the "list of 100
sites" folks, the 'me too' repliers, the "End of world near" posters,
the "have you seen my cat" and "send my  birthday email" 
and chain letters, and Craig Shergolds, and whatnot.

Perhaps you have missed all this.

> Today, the Internet/Web world is ruled by business. Most people who access
> it pay for it, all ISPs (like my company) pay big bucks for the right to
> connect in.  At this point, my question becomes "Who the hell are you to
> tell me what is and isn't an acceptable use of this thing I'm *paying* to use."

The answer is, who said I was... for the "Internet/Web"?  I have been
talking about Usenet and email, where, as one of the users that pay
for what comes in, I and the sysadmins have precisely the right to
make these decisions.  I never said anything about Web space in this
regard.

...
> It used to be that the Internet wasn't for sale. Today, it's easily for
> sale. The same rules don't apply, and we don't have the same need for
> net.cops.  
Again, applying my Usenet/email statements to the Web mischaracterizes
my opinions.  If you want to take it from the top, we can go through
it one area at a time.  Different needs for different spaces.

... >...I'll
> never again feel the need to quake in my shoes because I might be taken to
> task by these same net.cops.dinosaurs.

Kristine, I'd be curious to see you re-respond to my original message,
after you separate Usenet/email from Internet/Web.  Meanwhile, perhaps
as an experiment you'd like to set up some non-moderated Newsgroups
you care about, or just lurk in some, for a few weeks...and see whether
the noise-to-signal ratio is within your tolerance level.  I have
no objection to being labelled a net.cop.dinosaur (I've been called
far worse) if I can call you a mis-labeller.  One last time: do 
what thou wilt on your web site.  Don't litter (post inappropriately)
on Usenet or email.  If that's being a net.cop or a dinosaur, then
I'll eat .

I don't think we're arguing.  I think we're talking about
different things... dinosaurs vs mozillas, perchance.


Daniel Dern (ddern@world.std.com) Internet analyst, writer, pundit & curmudgeon
Columnist in NetGuide, Communications News, and Internet (a UK mag)
(617) 969-7947 FAX: (617) 969-7949  Snail: PO Box 309 Newton Centre MA 02159
* I'm now on Web (finally!), at http://www.dern.com * (I enjoy being an URL!) *
* DoppleGanger Internet Appliances Now Available - Ask about our combination 
  scanner/waffle-iron, and our multimedia microwave oven (it's HOT HOT HOT!)

------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #504
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Tue Feb  6 16:36:15 1996
Received: from svcs1.digex.net (svcs1.digex.net [204.91.197.224]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA11861 ; for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:36:14 -0500