Subject: Waiter, there's a fly in my epiphany...(Spam, Web, Usenet, Email) From: ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:58:31 -0500

I hate to prolong drifting-off-topic threads and argue with people who
say they're agreeing with me, but since I believe incorrect words
got put in my mouth, and other well-meaning but incorrect statements
also made, here we go... I'm also going to post a copy of this
in Usenet news.admin.net-abuse.misc, where I hope all follow-up discussion
will occur.  Thanks for bearing with me this hopefully one last time
(on this topic, this round).

Kristine Loosley  said:
> Daniel Dern  [ that's me ] ...says he has ... and a major problem with
> commercial (and other "inappropriate" [in his opinion]) newsgroup postings,
> which fill up news servers whether anyone reads 'em or not.
More precisely, perhaps, "inappropriate commercial postings, and other
inappropriate postings..." 

>  E-mail spam
> bothers him and others because in some cases it comes "postage due," meaning
> the receiver ends up paying for the time to download and delete it.
Not "in some cases."  ALL cases.  And many users don't get the chance
to see and decide until their money/time's already been spent.  The other
half of this problem, as Robert Raisch and others have pointed out, is
that it rarely if ever costs the SENDER on a per-person basis, so the
senders have ZERO cost-of-sending motivation to focus on likely prospects,
or even care at all how many unhappy receivers are being hit.

> There has been a "call to action," asking us as conscientious list members
> to do a couple of things when we are spammed. We are asked to reply to the
> spammer and to copy the reply to the postmaster@domainnameofspammer.com.  My
I don't think anybody's asked EVERYBODY to do so; I'm quite sure, especially
on a list like this, that enough are doing so.  

> point was that this is not a fight I choose to get into right now -- much
> like I have chosen not to lobby for many, many righteous causes or fight
> against illiteracy in third world countries.

Well, there is one difference... this one is about something you are 
directly involved in, as a list member and Internet user.  I'm not saying
you have to get involved, but this one directly impacts the Internet,
which you are using, so there's more correlation.  Similar perhaps to
worrying about sidewalks and snow plowing in general, vs on YOUR street.

> First, using Daniel's logic, spamming to a list-serve would be appropriate,
> since a list member is, in effect, "going to" the list much like he/she
> would go to a WWW page.

No. No.  Using listservs and other mailing lists generate _n_ actual
messages, one per participant.  Arguably it's WORSE, as (a) each message 
sent BY the spammer results in hundreds to thousands of copies, versus
when they send to a long list of people directly, and (b) this shifts
the brunt of the message sending load from the spammer's account
to the site where the list is kept -- thereby spending lots of 
somebody else's money.

 If you don't want to be endure the traffic
> associated with public lists, don't belong to public lists. 

Rather, increasingly, don't belong to unmoderated/unfiltered lists,
if you don't want to endure off-topic lists.  

I can buy the
> distinction between web and Usenet -- he's right, there's a big difference.
> But I believe lists fall more closely into the web model of thinking than
> the Usenet one. 

I believe that you are basing your opinion on a misunderstanding of how
lists work, so rather than say "I disagree" I'm going to say "IMHBCO (In
My Humble But Correct Opinion) you're wrong."  Epiphany at 11 ?

> Likewise, if you post your email address to a web page, it
> has become a matter of public record -- just like having a listed phone
> number -- and you have to endure the realities of junk mail just like you do
> junk phone calls.

A) Why?  B) What about posting to lists like this, which are increasingly
becoming archived and accessible via the Web?  


> Second, I have *absolutely no problem* with net.guardians (as Daniel calls
> himself) or net.vigilantes (as I cheerfully call them) fighting the good
> fight all they want. What I *do* find amusing and ironic is that the
> evangalism that necessarily goes with this fight and IS SPAM ITSELF! Let me

This argument has been made before, and again, I believe you're wrong.
A) It's not "spam itself"...the notifications are within well contained
areas.  B) The amount of "bandwidth" is FAR, FAR less... e.g. when 
Dick Depew advices that he has issued cancel-advisories for several
megabytes of binaries (e.g. programs) posted to inappropriate groups
(anything other than in alt.binaries.*, with perhaps an exception or
two)...a message or three like Depew's will represent probably 1/10th
of 1% of the space he's helping clean up.

Also, increasingly, most of the spam efforts to Usenet are getting
caught so soon we never see them.  If the spam-watchers were to
(without previous warning) let, say, 48 hours go by with their
machineries turned off, we'd see lots more junk.

> What would be different from me saying I want to protect Usenet and e-mail
> from pornography or cat discussions in general? Or from saying I want to

Night and day.  That's "content based," and every responsible spamwatcher
is extremely carefully to consider whether what they are doing is 
removing litter, versus making content decisions.  Spam control is 
about enabling Usenet and email to continue to work as viably as possible.
It's sometimes hard to tell when you're getting close to that borderline
(often called the "slippery slope" problem).  

>... that is another argument against anti-spamming since it sets the anti's up
> as self-appointed cops ...errr... vigilantes... who may draw the line way up
> to the side of where I'd draw it or you'd draw it).
You are welcome to add your opinions to the discussions (in 
news.admin.net-abuse.misc and news.admin.censorship).  If you feel strongly
enough, you can set up your own mailing lists, newsgroups, and even sites,
and excercise complete control...over those things you pay for/administer.

> What would be wrong with me writing to everyone I can think of and
> suggesting they help me in this fight of fights? If someone were to post to
> this group saying "Refugees in Bosnia need your aid," Daniel (and most of
> the rest of us) would consider it spamming.  My point is that anti-spammers
> are cause leaders just like anyone else -- be they commercially crass or
> ABSOLUTELY MORALLY CORRECT.

You're comparing oranges and bananas.  (I don't know if Apple's available
for comparison this week.)  Being concerned about [spam] here is similar
to being concerned about Robert's Rules of Order in a meeting, offhand.

> I'm *not* accusing or suggesting that the anti-spammers have resorted to
> spam in the traditional sense or sending bulk mail to random spots (I don't
> know that they haven't, either, of course).  But good-intentioned or not, if
> I apply the anti-spammers' own set of rules, this kind of
> net.evangalism.vigilantism.guardianship is a cause that can stay off all
> lists that are not directly related to net.administration. Right?

Fine by me.  I'll post a copy of this to news.admin.net-abuse.misc (FYI,
you'll often see the group name as an abbreviation, n.a.n-a.m) once 
I get this back through the list as email.  Anybody who wants to can 
hop over there (give it a day) and watch/join in.  I'll start the
thread using a header like "Spam discussion (redirected from CARR-L)"
so you can find it.

Again, I strongly advise anybody who starts following n.a.n-a.m to
lurk for at least a few days.... and meanwhile, watch 
news.admin.net-abuse.announce (moderated) to get a sense of how
much trash there is being posted that needs de-littering.

Thanks for bearing with me; see you in n.a.n-a.m.

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 #510
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Thu Feb  8 02:11:06 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08414 ; for ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 02:11:02 -0500