From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Oct 23 22:15:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23173 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:15:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from obie.softweyr.ml.org ([199.104.124.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA23167 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:15:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@xmission.com) Received: (from wes@localhost) by obie.softweyr.ml.org (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA04620; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:21:03 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:21:03 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199710240521.XAA04620@obie.softweyr.ml.org> From: Wes Peters To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pulling email addresses from freebsd lists In-Reply-To: <199710210903.SAA00631@word.smith.net.au> References: <199710210903.SAA00631@word.smith.net.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Mike Smith writes: > > I disagree, I believe that (mail) protocols which require authentication > > and tracability of the sender would cut spam dramatically, > > This is absurdly naive. > > > If, when you received spam, you > > could determine the senders email, name, and phone number the amount of > > complaints to spammers and their ISP's would rise massively. It would > > also provide the technological infrastructure that governments need to > > enforce anti-spam legislation. > > Alright! Big Brother, here we come. > > You DO NOT want what you are proposing, believe me. > > > If the spammers knew their identity was available, and knew they would > > get caught and prosecuted, then they wouldn't do it. > > They would move offshore. Or, I'd move offshore and set up an e-mail bouncer, and charge them beacoup $$$ to bounce their spam-o-grams at innocent bystanders like each of us. This is another peek at the grimy underside of human nature: whenever a new communications media becomes available, some slimeball marketroids are going to take advantage of it. It is against the law in the U.S. state of Oregon to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to residential phones. What does this mean? There are no large telemarketing organizations in the state of Oregon. As a matter of fact, most of them are here in Utah, but they still call people in Oregon, because that is not against the law! > So what? You've sacrificed your ability to > participate in legitimate anonymous communications, and done nothing > about the spam issue. Precisely. The problem with "spam mail" is that it is so difficult to separate from "real mail." If everyone on the planet starts dropping mail from hotmail.com, et al, or refuses to allow connections from them, perhaps they will cease and desist. This, like so many other on-line issues, needs to be handled via network channels and *not* legal channels. If we get the lawyers involved, we'll all end up screwed. And we *certainly* don't want the U.S. Federal Birbrained Idiots involved. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com