[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Spam blacklist project


In list.cypherpunks, [email protected] writes:

[ a 'don't call' list of email addresses suggested ]

>         Of course I don't for a moment imagine that this will
> be 100% effective. 

I think the figure you're looking for is closer to 0% than 100%

> Without government regulation there will
> always be slimeballs who send mail to people who don't want it.

If you remove the first three words of that sentence, I agree 100%.  If
you replace the first word with "With", I also agree 100%.  Regulations
aren't the answer.  Slimeballs don't care if there are rules.

Furthermore, regulations for spam mean enforcement procedures.  Looks
like GAE is the only way to do it.  Howzabout you can only send mail
through a USPS gateway?  Wouldn't that make it easy?

{for the acronym-impaired, the E stands for email.  the sarcasm-impaired
probably already hit delete}

>         The advantage of this scheme is that it would mean that
> the spam industry can avoid regulation pressure and they can
> deflect criticism. Meanwhile recipients of unwanted spam have 
> a legitimate beef.

You're asking marketing concerns to proactively limit their coverage in
the absence of legislation or regulation.  History suggests it would be
less than completely effective.
- -- 
           Roy M. Silvernail     [ ]      [email protected]
PGP Public Key fingerprint =  31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54  13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6
                Key available from [email protected]

Version: 2.6.2