home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131703&cid=10996039
-
-
- Fine, you twisted my arm. (Score:4, Funny)
- by IO ERROR (128968) Neutral <`su.rorreoi' `ta' `rorre'> on 06:49 AM
- December 4th, 2004 (#10996039)
- ( http://www.ioerror.us/ | Last Journal: 03:05 PM April 18th, 2004 )
-
- Your post advocates a
-
- ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) vigilante
-
- approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't
- work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea,
- and it may have other flaws which vary from state to state.)
-
- ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
- ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
- ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
- ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
- ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
- ( ) Users of email will not put up with it
- ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
- (x) The police will not put up with it
- ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
- (x) Requires cooperation from too many of your friends and is counterintuitive
- ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
- ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
- employers
- ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
- (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
- ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever worked
- ( ) Other:
-
- Specifically, your plan fails to account for
-
- (x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
- ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
- (x) Open relays in foreign countries
- ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
- (x) Asshats
- ( ) Jurisdictional problems
- ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
- ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
- ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
- (x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
- ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
- (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
- ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
- (x) Extreme profitability of spam
- ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
- ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
- ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
- ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
- (x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
- ( ) Outlook
- ( ) Other:
-
- and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
-
- ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
- ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
- ( ) Blacklists suck
- ( ) Whitelists suck
- ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
- ( ) Countermeasures cannot involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
- (x) Countermeasures cannot involve sabotage of public networks
- ( ) Sending email should be free
- (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
- ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
- (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
- ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
- ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
- (x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
- ( ) Other:
-
- Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
-
- ( ) Nice try, dude, but I don't think it will work.
- (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
- ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn
- your house down!
-
-