I am nearing the end of my allow time to respond, so if I do not respond in future, it
doesn't mean I agree :)
below...
>> 2. Regarding additional burden on *legitimate* bulk message *senders*:
>>
>> a. These senders are much, much fewer than the # of receivers suffering
>> from spam. Any incremental cost on the few is justified.
>
>yeah, well good luck convincing *them* of that. especially when you can't
>even convince *us* of that.
You ("us" not including me and perhaps some others) are apparently "them", so I see no
need for the word "especially".
Further, there is no need to convince the minority. Majority wins. If enforcers
successfully block all bulk email with my proposal (as an internet STD) sanctioning
it, then receivers (the minority) will dictate the outcome.
I assert that even if 50% spam is not bad enough to make the 500 million rise up, just
wait until it is 90+%, which again I assert won't be too long from now.
>> b. The senders are already quite resource savvy, else they would not be
>> sending *legitimate* bulk (in statistical significance) messages. I
>> doubt the incremental cost is significant to cause failure.
>
>let's see. it doesn't cost the spammers much to send bulk mail...
Oh it costs spammer something. They are definitely more resource savvy than the
majority, which was my point. The burden on the minority is less important, if the
majority is making big gains from the proposal.
>so why
>do you assume that the costs are significant to legitimate senders?
They have to maintain mailing list servers, mailing list databases, manage support for
subscribers, handle incoming spam, etc.. All things which an average (the majority)
individual user of email doesn't have to do (or won't bother to do).
>> c. And compare this burden to the burden they have with dealing with
>> spam, which would be eliminated by this proposal. If spam isn't
>> eliminated, then they need not adopt the proposal.
>
>most of the burden of dealing with spam is on the recipient, not the sender.
Agreed currently. But not once my proposal succeeded, which is a correction I made
after making this point #c above. Point #c is invalid. Please remove it.
>apparently you think that legitimate senders should pay for the cost of
>lessening the burden on recipients from illegitimate senders.
Insert "bulk" after legitimate and illegitimate, then I agree with your statement.
The reason is because *legitimate* bulk message senders are going to pay one way or
the other soon. It is like the old Fram oil filter commercial in USA, "Either pay me
now (replace filter) or pay me later (replace motor)"
As the rate of spam approaches 90% or 99%, receivers are going to opt to block all
bulk email, irregardless of whether my proposal is in place. They won't have any
other choice, else quit using email.
Now that is profound prediction!
> why do I think
>you're not likely to get much support for that view from the senders?
Oh yes to be expected that human nature tends to manicure (defend) their own feet
instead of watching where they are going and what they will soon bump into.
Shelby Moore
http://AntiViotic.com
