Hadmut Danisch
2003-03-19 17:33:29 UTC
Hi,
I meanwhile came to the conclusion that this
working/research group's will certainly fail.
I see strong interests to spoil any success of this group
to find a technical solution. This group is under a
certain kind of attack: The commercial attack.
Spam is a business with growing revenue. The small business
is sending spam. The big business is selling anti-spam-solutions.
Obviously those, who's business is either one of these, try to prevent
a simple and effective solution.
The situation is similar to the virus/worm threat: Some parties make
huge revenues with selling anti-virus-solutions. It would be their
sudden death if application software and operating systems became
virus proof. Some of the anti-virus-software manufacturers are
suspected to viruses themselves in order to keep their business
alive.
I am under the impression that there is the very same situation with
Spam: It's business, it's revenue, it's profits, and thus it must not be
spoiled. Anti-spam efforts are welcome as long as they strengthen the
public awareness of spam and make people purchase
anti-spam-solutions. But a solution which effectively prevents spam
at zero costs is deprecated. Zero costs means zero revenue.
Similar to the situation of viruses/worms, some of the spam messages
might be faked spam, not made to sell penis enlargement devices, but
to sell anti-spam-software.
Why are so many people strictly against anything what could prevent
spam at the sender side? Because the sender wouldn't pay for a
solution. Why do so many people insist on the freedom of the sender
to send whatever the sender wishes to send with a sender address the
sender can randomly choose? Simple answer: That's the only way to make
the recipient buy anti-spam-software or anti-spam-services.
Spam doesn't sell significant numbers of penis enlargement devices.
Spam sells Anti-Spam-software. That's the business.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out
to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and
trying to put through recipient-only solutions.
And maybe that's why the mailing list is flooded with so much
rubbish and babble. That's some kind of denial of service attack.
Hadmut
I meanwhile came to the conclusion that this
working/research group's will certainly fail.
I see strong interests to spoil any success of this group
to find a technical solution. This group is under a
certain kind of attack: The commercial attack.
Spam is a business with growing revenue. The small business
is sending spam. The big business is selling anti-spam-solutions.
Obviously those, who's business is either one of these, try to prevent
a simple and effective solution.
The situation is similar to the virus/worm threat: Some parties make
huge revenues with selling anti-virus-solutions. It would be their
sudden death if application software and operating systems became
virus proof. Some of the anti-virus-software manufacturers are
suspected to viruses themselves in order to keep their business
alive.
I am under the impression that there is the very same situation with
Spam: It's business, it's revenue, it's profits, and thus it must not be
spoiled. Anti-spam efforts are welcome as long as they strengthen the
public awareness of spam and make people purchase
anti-spam-solutions. But a solution which effectively prevents spam
at zero costs is deprecated. Zero costs means zero revenue.
Similar to the situation of viruses/worms, some of the spam messages
might be faked spam, not made to sell penis enlargement devices, but
to sell anti-spam-software.
Why are so many people strictly against anything what could prevent
spam at the sender side? Because the sender wouldn't pay for a
solution. Why do so many people insist on the freedom of the sender
to send whatever the sender wishes to send with a sender address the
sender can randomly choose? Simple answer: That's the only way to make
the recipient buy anti-spam-software or anti-spam-services.
Spam doesn't sell significant numbers of penis enlargement devices.
Spam sells Anti-Spam-software. That's the business.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out
to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and
trying to put through recipient-only solutions.
And maybe that's why the mailing list is flooded with so much
rubbish and babble. That's some kind of denial of service attack.
Hadmut