From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Jan 17 21:08:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA15591 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:08:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA15570 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:08:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA19016; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:44:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd018938; Sun Jan 17 21:43:59 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA07501; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:43:51 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199901180443.VAA07501@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Forward all spam to UCE@FTC.GOV [please take to -chat] To: jbryant@unix.tfs.net Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:43:51 +0000 (GMT) Cc: jabley@clear.co.nz, jal@ThirdAge.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, dennis.moore@mail.house.gov, tlambert@primenet.com In-Reply-To: <199901162259.QAA28290@unix.tfs.net> from "Jim Bryant" at Jan 16, 99 04:59:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > 3. Implement a technical solution based on end-to-end signatures and/or > > cryptography, so that unsolicited mail will never be accepted. This would > > effectively make spam pointless, since the target audience is removed. > > terry used this argument. > > such a solution would require standardization, many years to > implement, as well as the finding unconstitutional of our current law > based on property rights issues. to do this before such a ruling > would result in massive restraint of trade lawsuits that could only be > defended by using the private property case and making the current law > unconstitutional. > > how long will it be before a way is found around this solution by > spammers? once they do that, we are back where we started. they have > found ways around everything else we can throw at them. > > i also believe that implementation on a national scale would also be > more expensive than a legal solution with adequate enforcement methods > and budgets. it would be totally ineffective to do this unless it was > mandated by law, see my argument concerning why we have the current > problems because of "voluntary self-regulation" and the lack of anyone > volunteering to do it effectively. Actually, all this would require is that participants either expect a signature by the signature authority on the connection, or that participants contact the authority to ash whether it would sign if it were asked to sign. This means that it is implementable as a phased approach to the problm, unlike other past approaches. In general, if I'm asked for a soloution to a problem, I take into account the games theoretic consequences of soloutions. This particular soloution only requires incremental participation. In addition, if people actually *want* SPAM, then they can either disable the certification, or they can respect a signature autority other than the default authority that implements whatever editorial policy they want to respect. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message