Re: anti-spam collateral damage

Dave Harding wrote:
> Warning, heavy snipping of previous post contained herewithin.
> 
> Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> |
> | In the case of the receptionist, you are counting on her/him to have
> | some discriminating ability to allow non pre-authorized contacts
> | through. But they're not omniscient.
> 
> This is true. What I also think is true is that the rules you linked to
> are not going to provide me with an omniscient solution to the problem
> of unwanted contacts that get through the filter or wanted contacts
> that don't.

agreed.  Even hashcash will not stop the truly persistent obnoxious 
mailer from getting through.  It just lets you set the price of getting 
through higher for that particular density making it more expensive for 
them to talk with you.

> 
> | The point remains that public interfaces are by the very nature part of 
> | the Commons we use every day.
> 
> s/the/their/ ?

I believe so.  I apologize for the uncorrected speech recognition error.

> This doesn't make private property a public interface. If someone were
> to urinate on your front lawn, your private property, would you accept
> the excuse that it was a public interface of the natural commons?

hanging me by my own argument ;-).  No, it doesn't excuse them because 
it's unacceptable public behavior in the same way that spam, 
evangelizing, and public sex are all unacceptable public behavior.  At 
the same time it doesn't justify putting up a razor wire fence at the 
boundary.  Again, it's not considered appropriate public behavior.

I think we are actually an agreement, we're just trying to figure out 
the boundaries.  Once we agree, then we need to convince the rest of the 
world.  ;-)


> | Most people have no choice in ISP for in 60 percent of the United
> | States, it's Comcast and nobody else.
> 
> This may be true. Still, people have a lot of options when it comes
> to their email ISP. I, for one, have Comcast connectivity but not
> Comcast email.

there's a difference between having options and knowing that you have 
options.  most people don't know they can and are intimidated by the 
very act of signing up for different mail service supplier.  Most people 
would instead just shrug, give up on the net and turn back to the 
telephone and Postal Service.  Watching folks without technical 
knowledge as they try to do things we take for granted is quite 
enlightening.  It's one of the things that guided my user interface for 
camram.

but even if someone knows they can go to somebody else for e-mail, 
frequently they can't as organizations such as Comcast are blocking port 
25 outbound from the networks.  It might seem like a good idea because 
of viruses etc. but it's an anti-competitive move by virtue of making it 
difficult or impossible for other service providers to service Comcast 
customers.

> | so is a Bill of Rights needed?  As long as we have an effective duopoly 
> | for last mile service at high speed, I would say yes and for more than 
> | e-mail.  the EFF proposal is close but not perfect.  We should also 
> | build as many of those rights as we need in the form of good anti-spam 
> | technology of e-mail without building in censorship.  After all, if you 
> | can censor a spammer, you can censor anybody.  And I think that's the 
> | core point of the EFF argument.
> 
> I think that if you feel there's is a Mono- or Dual-opoly you should be
> spending your time attempting to creating a more diverse market. Forcing
> regulations down the throat of a monopoly is a distant second-place to
> letting a diverse market compete, based on merit, for customers.

again, we are in agreement.  In order to have a diverse market, it's 
necessary to recognize that last mile is a (natural) monopoly and that 
structural separation for both telephone and cable services is required. 
  That way multiple organizations can have non-discriminatory access to 
customers for a whole host of services without having to deploy 
extremely expensive and redundant last mile infrastructure.

unfortunately, under the ideologically driven Bush administration, 
rational plans based on real world facts don't get much traction. 
(warning: I can rant long and reasonably accurately on 
telecommunications policy around last mile issues.  It would be a good 
idea to knock me started ;-))

> 
> My main point, summarized: The anti-spam setup I have now is the result
> of several years of trial-and-error and the thought of being force-fed
> someone elses system is not desirable to me.

I can respect that except when it bars me from communicating with you 
directly.  I feel similarly about identity based systems.  They are 
sufficiently evil that it might drive me away from e-mail or, more 
likely, drive me to organize a parallel e-mail system based on hashcash

---eric

-- 
Question: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
Answer: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.