r...@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) writes: > <shrug> And I think that a plausible argument can be made that what > Facebook et.al. are doing is worse -- in the long run, not in the > obvious/immediate sense.
if you limit it to "in the long run" i'm inclined to agree. noting that with half a billion users, facebook doesn't need spam for growth, they have plenty of word of mouth and household name value going for them. i don't know anything about their internal operations but i'm betting that they spend measurable money trying not to send unwanted bulk e-mail -- so they stuff they send me is what slips through the cracks and not some kind of thinly veiled "oops, sorry about that, click here to opt out" scam. but as you say, the precedent they're setting will be bad for all of us and their behaviour WILL be used as an excuse by actual spammers. noting, i had the opposite and a much more extreme view before i'd actually met some facebook infosec people, to whom i've apologized. i don't know how to be in the business facebook is in without an error rate which when multiplied by their transaction volume and customer base size does not result in unwanted bulk e-mail. i'd like to see published evidence that they're doing the best they can, and i'd like them to take seriously the infosec community's suggestions on how to improve, but it would never drop their outbound unwanted to zero and most of those half billion users are happy with the deal they're getting from facebook. what advice -- useful, pertinent, realistic advice -- can we give to facebook? i'm asking a serious question, because the people i know there would listen if we weren't equating them reactionarily to childporn spammer filth. -- Paul Vixie KI6YSY _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.