[IP] more on Email issues
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:44:35 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Email issues
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "PeterB.Ladkin" <ladkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/