Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Solution to Spam

["Mark McCarron" <]

> > You have most of this all wrong.  I don't know where most of you are 
> getting
> > your ideas from, but it seems as though you are scanning the posts I 
> sent
> > rather than reading them and taking time to study them.
>
> Mark, the people who replied to your postings have indeed scanned them
> in the correct sense of the meaning of "scan" rather than the sense
> which you intended.
>
> What it boils down to is that you want to create an incompatibility
> layer in SMTP with some hand-wavey ideas about ensuring that each mail
> sent is properly authenticated, for some broken definition of
> "authenticated" (shall we call it "I Can't Believe It's Not
> Authentication!"?).  There are a large number of flaws in your proposal,
> many of which have been pointed out by Der Mouse and other. Not least
> among thesethe fact that it would require all mail systems everywhere on
> the Internet to be upgraded or patched.  And it's nothing less than
> extraordinary that you feel that this could be sorted out "within a
> matter of days", as you noted.
Mark's response:

There are no 'flaws' in the system.  Der Mouse has been posting on what he 
believes the system to be, even when corrected he still reverts to his own 
belief.  The system has been tested and tested, it works perfectly and 
nothing could be done to circumvent the system.  I don't know where you got 
that idea from.  Also, how hard is it to download a file and click install, 
I know it slightly different with unix and Linux however, its not rocket 
science.


> Let's be clear about this: bulk mail is good or at least neutral;
> unsolicited bulk mail is bad, and if your proposal is going to throw the
> baby out with the bathwater, then it is not worth implementing.  But by
> all means, come up with a complete solution, publish it on the web, and
> we'll take a look at it - why don't you try going to the IETF, and
> writing up an rfc, if you feel it's worth it?
Mark's response:

That will be done in the course of the next weeks or so, we have a lot of 
paper work to go through first.



> > 'Mailing lists' as I said are unimportant however
>
> Riiiight.  So because you assert that the majority of Internet users
> don't use mailing lists because "they cannot use them" (apparently), you
> want to excise this particular feature forever more?  Well, that's bound
> to cause people to take your proposal seriously, no really :-)
Mark's response:

I was half asleep when I wrote that.  What I meant to type was the majority 
of Internet users are NOT members of any mailing lists.  Therefore, to the 
majority of Internet users, mailing lists are unimportant.  I see you 
deliberatly ignored the part about them NOT being blocked.  Very 
professional.

Mark McCarron

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. 
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess