Re: Inexpensive anti-spamware/anti-verminware tactic

JCB> (And, let's face it, im2000 *would* be at least a partial
JCB> retreat against a victorious enemy.)

JdeBP> No, it isn't.  Indeed, quite the converse.  Adopting
JdeBP> IM2000 is the neutralisation of an enemy by completely
JdeBP> eliminating the game that is biased in his/her favour.

JCB> Well, here's where I think we might disagree pretty strongly.

Yes, but mainly because (a) you've tried to rewrite your above comment into 
being "retreating" from an aspect of reading (a somewhat distorted use of 
"retreat", moreover) when it actually referred to retreating from UBM 
senders (which you don't actually mention at all here), and (b) you
are applying double standards.

JCB> With IM2000, I'm potentially offered the tantalizing "You Have
JCB> IM2000 Mail From [someone spectacular]", and when I go to
JCB> actually *read* that email, I'm told "the network is down"
JCB> or "the MSRAP is unavailable".

And with SMTP-based Internet mail, you're offered the tantalizing ability to
send mail, but when you actually send it it bounces because the remote end is
unreachable, the recipient's mailbox is full, or your connection to Internet
is down for too long.  Here's a double standard.

JCB> what we're retreating from, by switching to IM2000, is the
JCB> assurance of being able to *read* messages whose
JCB> notifications are sitting in our in-boxes.

And here's the very torturous rewriting of what we are supposed 
to be retreating from.

JCB> In general, IM2000 seems a bit like implementing, for that
JCB> subset of computing activities known as "electronic mail",
JCB> the enticing concept of "network terminals".  So computers
JCB> in households don't really receive or store email, they just
JCB> tie into a central mainframe (which is now called the Internet,
JCB> and has an arbitrary, fairly loose arrangement of Message
JCB> Stores) that takes care of that for them.

Not at all.  Originator MUAs keep copies of mail that they send and recipient
MUAs store copies of mail that they decide to take over responsibility for
storing.

JCB> it'll be hard to convince *lots* of people to leave their
JCB> incoming email scattered all over the Internet instead of
JCB> in their own in-boxes, safe and warm.

Really ?  If having incoming mail stored locally on one's own machine is a
feature that is highly prized by lots of people, how come Hotmail has
customers ?

JCB> I want my in-box to be ready, willing, and able,
JCB> whenever *I* am.

More double standards.  In the SMTP-based Internet mail system your inbox
isn't available from everywhere that you might be (unless you provide
encrypted POP3/IMAP service to the whole of Internet).  In the IM2000 Internet
mail system your inbox is available everywhere that you might be because it
isn't stored on _your_ machines at all.  It's distributed across a whole load
of public-facing machines, which you can access wherever you may roam.  Just
like the eyes on a painting follow one around the room without moving, an
IM2000 inbox follows one around Internet without moving.

JCB> IM2000 doesn't really help me all that much via its
JCB> architectural differences from SMTP when it comes to making
JCB> my *incoming* email less "friendly" to spammers;

You haven't demonstrated that.  You've hardly discussed UBM from a
recipient's perspective, at all.  Most of your discussions about UBM have
centred upon the cost to senders, and have missed the point.