Re: CAPTCHA over smtp (yet another spam solution to discuss)

2006/11/14, Joachim Kupke <[email protected]>:
> David Sanchez wrote:
>
> >>Ah, mailing lists.  Nope, the mailing list would prompt you to solve
> >>the puzzle.  Or pay the money or whatever.
> >
> >Nope, i mean sending a mail with copy to 3 or 4 people.
> >
> >This is just impracticable.
>
> Are you saying:  You would like to send out a message to 4 people, some
> of whom speak Chinese and will therefore ask you to solve a puzzle
> stated in Chinese, and others speak Italian and will therefore ask you
> to solve a puzzle states in Italian?
>
> Plus, these folks didn't whitelist you to begin with?
>
> Are you spamming them?

Maybe I just speak english (not likely :-P ) and that smtp server only
chinese (but the intended recipient speaks 5 languages, for instance)
this will be a mess.

How do you'll deal with that?

> >>If you need an output queue, go get your own.  Don't force everyone
> >>(like SMTP does) to think in terms of there being an output queue all
> >>the time.
> >
> >If output queue is just an option, why don't just use a phone call or
> >IM?  :-P
>
> Because I would need to hook up my modem to the phone in order to
> transmit, conveniently, arbitrary data.
>
> Instant Messaging is just email in disguise.

That's the way...

>
> >For me is a must, mail without delay delivering is not mail. Is just
> >another thing.
>
> If that other thing serves everybody's purposes (but yours) just as well
> as email does, only without the spam, that'd be great.

I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one that things this way.

>
> >Yeah, i'll send you a blackmail (which is spam, by definition)
>
> Would like to see that definition.  Blackmailing people is most likely
> to be criminal, though.

Well, bad example, but you can understand it, i think.

I won't blackmail you

> >and perfectly fill the Challenge offered by your MTA, and pay whatever
> >it costs.
>
> What---you'd pay me $1M in order to convey threatening words to my
> computer screen?  Deal.

:-P

> Seriously, as soon as the cost of sending any message (even a criminal
> one) to my virtual doorstep exceeds that of sending it, via express
> courier or in person, to my physical doorstep, the spam problem is
> pretty much solved.
>
> >That's an example of unavoidable spam.
>
> Your definition of spam might go something along the lines of, anything
> that doesn't make you happy.  Other people might want, for good reason,
> to read messages that don't make them happy.

You already know that blur is the frontier from ad-mail and spam.

> >If you want whole internet availability you must deal with spam. Simple as
> >that.
> >
> >Moreover the idea of paying for sending is against current Internet
> >philosophy.
>
> You may want to give evidence for these claims.

How can you probe the obvious?

Is hard :-)

Send me $2 and i'll give you an explanation :-P

> >I will just quit using, developing or maintaining a service in that
> >paying is a MUST. Simple as that.
>
> Never sent old-style mail, using postage?  (To regurgitate, reimbursing
> recipients for their attention span is NOT postage.)

Well, i won't blackmail you (nor anyone), i promise :-D

I am just making my point clear

Go to the point, please :-)

> >Not likely to happen, thank god.
> >
> >Another example, i do have a lot of spam in my phisical mailbox, and
> >that traditionally had costs (stamps, the deliver guy, etc...). And
> >spam in your car front when parked. And all that had implied costs (a
> >lot more than electronic communications).
>
> Advertisers advertise because it increases their revenue.  Nobody is
> banning the ads business.  Spam, by my definition, is the process of
> sending a person mail at an expense (to them) that exceeds the utility
> of that piece of mail.  A commercial on TV doesn't qualify because it
> pays for your TV show.  Spam in your physical mailbox exists precisely
> because (I'm pretty sure) it's free for me to put anything into it.

Pretty fine definition, i've another one

Spam = Unsolicited Bulk Mail

Merriam-Webster has another one http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/spam

:-)

> Again, we are not talking about postage.

Why not? e-mail was designed pretty much like snail-mail

> >> >The solution of a lot of mail problems should pass adopting the
> >> >IM2000 proposal of being the sender who stores the mail.
> >>
> >>I think this reasoning has already been found to be flawed.  Hell,
> >>greylisting would be superior to IM2000 if it weren't for the need for
> >>senders' busy-waiting.
> >
> >Maybe it's true, but spam and other mail problems will be disminished.
>
> Another claim you may want to give evidence for.

IMHO, zombie windows sending spam and such kind of things will be
drastically reduced.

Costs for spammers will be drastically increased.

More costs, less spam.

> >If you want a universal, free access internet mail, spam is unavoidable
>
> Oops; you just said that "whole Internet availability" already resulted
> in spam.  Now you are adding "free access" to the equation.  So, do you
> agree that availability across the whole Internet is *not* a problem?
> (If so, we can work on "free access" not being a problem, either.)
>

I said spam is unavoidable, if you want free (as in freedom) and whole
internet available mail. Just that.

If you want send mail to a limited list of users you can avoid spam entirely.