Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Email issues
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:38:26 -0500
Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:44:35 -0800 From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com> Subject: Re: [IP] Email issues To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: ip () v2 listbox com, "PeterB.Ladkin" <ladkin () rvs uni-bielefeld de> Dave, PL> Since the e-mail server market is dominated by very few pieces of PL> SW, one imagines a coordinated effort to alter e-mail protocols PL> to introduce some degree of authentication, say along the lines of PL> Tripoli, lies at least as well within reach as schemes to introduce PL> payment for e-mail. First of all, there are more server implementations than folks tend to realize. Second of all, if you are going to make a fundamental change to email, then you should assume that it will change _all_ of the components in the service, not just the servers. Third of all, changing the software is probably a trivial part of the effort. It is deploying and operating the changes that makes the effort daunting. There are two major problems that have been limiting our ability to produce useful responses to spam. The first is that we do not yet have a shared, practical framework for talking about the problems and comparing the solutions. (For reference, I used plurals intentionally and consider the fact that there are plurals to be significant.) So people argue more from a religious devotion to their favorite scheme than from an analytic framework that treats email as a complex interaction of human and technical factors. In other words, they only see the plusses and usually reject any feedback about drawbacks. Eyes glaze as soon as the topic is cast in terms of complexity and trade-offs. After all, this is an emergency! So what if we have to give up core benefits, as long as we keep some others? After all, the system is under attack and we have to do _something_! Let's be clear about the state of mind that such a perspective demonstrates. It is called hysteria. Unfortunately, the problem of spam really does warrants that reaction. The degree to which we all feel under crippling attack really is that severe. However hysteria prevents any meaningful discussion about balanced approaches toward control of spam. (Another vocabulary note: there is not now and probably never will be a "solution" to spam. The best we can hope for is controlling it to tolerable levels.) As people advocate their favorite approaches, they need to look for equivalent uses for that approach, elsewhere in the human sphere of communication. And when they think they have found such an exemplar, they need to be certain it compares accurately. For example, sender pays is the basis for postal and telephonic communication, so what is the problem with imposing it on email? The answer is that _changing_ an economic model for a service in use by 1/2 Billion people is rather different from starting anew. Further, the fees paid in the non-Internet world are directly to the service provider, to cover their own costs. The proposals for email sender payment are for an artificially created fee. This is certain to explode into a political feeding frenzy as various constituencies in the world of email and marketing grab for a share of the very large pot. If anyone doubts that scenario, take another look at the community's history surrounding the creation of ICANN. d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Email issues Dave Farber (Feb 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on Email issues Dave Farber (Feb 20)