Re: IM2000 Won't Be Worth It

Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> writes:

> The main arguments seem to be that it would somehow reduce spam,
> without there being any clear picture of precisely *why* it would do
> any such thing, and that message bounces are somehow inherently bad,
> again without any clear explanation of *why* bounces are bad and what
> we would have instead.

I don't think eliminating spam is the main argument, although people
do seem to be talking about it a lot.

I think the main argument is eliminating bounce messages and
simplifying mailing lists.

Bounce messages are bad because they are widely mishandled today, and
there is no realistic prospect for improvement.  Today there is no
good way to know whether somebody received an e-mail message, short of
telephoning them.  IM2000 raises the possibility of solving that
problem (you still won't know whether the message was read, but you
will know that it was received).

Large mailing lists are bad because they have a lot of churn in
recipients, and thanks to the problems with bounce messages you wind
up sending many messages to recipients who no longer exist.  IM2000
simplifies the handling enormously.  With a high volume list you don't
even need to send any notifications; you can just require recipients
to check message status themselves.  I'm one of the group who manages
sources.redhat.com, which hosts the gcc and cygwin development mailing
lists, and IM2000 would eliminate a number of the things we have to
deal with regularly.

I personally don't think IM2000 will help with the spam problem.  I
find the various arguments on that front to be unconvincing--spammers
have already demonstrated that they are highly adaptable, and I'm sure
they would adapt to IM2000 as well.

Ian