From: "Alan DeKok" <aland@freeradius.org>I kindly point you to my mention of government involvement which sparked the whole afair. There is no mention of control, just funding.
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity -- scaling, adoption, diversity and scenarios Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:32:09 -0400
"John Fenley" <pontifier@hotmail.com> wrote:
> C/R can mess with mailing lists.
> I proposed a system to fix that problem. I recieved no constructive
> criticism, and when I proposed government funding that became the issue not
> wether or not it could work.
Uh, no. You proposed government *control*. "Government funding"
means you get a research grant to implement a system that everyone can
use.
> The main advantage I see to C/R is that it does not require any technicalSo don't talk to them. The point is that C/R stops people who dont want to talk to the reciever. You don't care, therfore C/R works. If you had any sort of desire to speak to the person, you would answer the challenge and be done with it.
> knowlege, and it can prevent a new user from ever seing a single spam thus
> disrupting its propegation.
The main disadvantage is that I'm not going to talk to someone using
a C/R system, because it means increasing *my* workload, to lower
*their* spam problem. This is fundamentally evil, in my opinion.
> Filters of any sort, on the other hand, require user input and must beI am trying to keep this out of the "expert user" realm.
> constantly trained as spammers evolve. Users will only do this after they
> see spam as a problem, this is probly after they bought their *free* viagra.
There are spamtraps, which receive *nothing* but spam. Many filter
systems use spamtraps as an automated source of spam.
Mock me if you must, but a small increase can have a huge effect when that small increase is widely distributed.> A 1% increase in overall productivity could mean the difference > between a good economy, and a bad one. That's nice.