Re: Why are we here? What are our goals?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lyndon Nerenberg" <[email protected]>
To: "James Craig Burley" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: Why are we here? What are our goals?

> A messaging transport cannot dictate, restrict, or encourage morals any
> more than sight, speech, or the printed word can.

You are right 100%. I couldn't agree with you more.

But thats why we must take out the AI and fuzzy logic interpretation of
content and sender intent out of the picture and strictly keep it as a
protocol transport ACCESS concept - authentication or trusted relationship.

In other words,  you need to have permission to send me data regardless of
what it is it.  You need to follow the rules, the specs and you can't lie
about it.  Whats so hard to understand about that?  Why would we want to
waste my time, commit design, development, documentation,  marketing and
production dollars, including the retraining my market of customers to
CONVINCE them to buy into to a new system when we can't honestly answer the
customer question:

Customer:

     "Wow! Sounds great! Finally,  No more SPAMS?"

Santronics:

    "ehh, not quite!  You still have the same problem, but guess what!  You
know have a better way
     of talking to your friends in Korea! And it might even order pizza for
you!"

You really think the industry will accept what inevitable will became a
multi-billion revamp cost when it doesn't even solve or address the main
problem the industry was concern about?

Why bother?   We might as keep what we have today!   I highly doubt anyone
(companies and customers who have to pay for it) will consider anything new
if it doesn't address the spam problem.

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com