[FoRK] At what point is this thread officially broken?

Jeff Bone < jbone at place.org > on > Thu Dec 7 18:12:51 PST 2006

E-mail is solved.  Why are we talking about this?  Get a fucking Mac,  
if you can't put a better solution together using Linux.  Use  
Mail.app.  That's solved three sigmas worth of my problems, which is  
plenty for me.  I don't give two shits about the infrastructural  
problem, as --- with all networking problems --- it can be dealt with  
at the edges.  If that's not good enough for you philosophically /  
economically / aesthetically / whatever, then there's a clear  
technological solution --- sender pays retrieve / storage costs.   
HTTPmail, see earlier convos between me and Paul Prescod, and Paul's  
write-up.  This shit isn't a technology problem anymore, the long- 
term solution at the infrastructural level is a social / adoption  
problem.  In the meantime, my own solution --- Go Mac, client rocks  
--- works well enough level for me that I'm not concerned, day to  
day, *AT ALL.*  Indeed, the edge-solution may be optimal:  end-users  
aren't bothered, and yet the bottom-feeders make and pump money  
through normal market means.  The only folks that pay are the  
carriers, and there are indeed benefits to pushing them for more  
capacity.

The real thing that's driving the incapable to bitch about email is  
actually infoglut --- and sisters, you aren't going to solve that by  
solving spam.  That's an entirely different problem --- but *also*  
solved, to the first-order.

jb


On Dec 7, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Aaron Burt wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:42:50AM -0800, Jim Whitehead wrote:
>>> Why, yes, I got that the first time.  What specifically needs  
>>> fixing?
>>
>> This is trolling for a specific technical recommendation. I don't
>> want to go down that particular path.
>
> I must be mistaken, because I'm reading that as, "It's broken, but I
> won't tell you what needs fixing.  But fix it NOW!"
> I'm a young guy, so I got tired of hearing that only about 15 years  
> ago.
>
> I asked because I would like the conversation to advance beyond, "This
> useful tool is being abused by someone!  Make it stop!"
>
>> I want to focus on my main point, which is the current email
>> infrastructure is broken in the sense that it permits excessively
>> large amounts of spam. Once there is agreement that the current
>> infrastructure is broken, then we can begin to examine the design
>> space of possible solutions.
>
> We do not have agreement, then.  I don't think it's a difference of
> opinions, but a difference of perceptions and paradigms.
>
>> Yes, I did read the document you referenced (http:// 
>> www.craphound.com/
>> spamsolutions.txt). One can view it as an attempt to defend the
>> existing infrastructure by pointing out problems in the suggested
>> fixes.
>
> If one were to take an adversarial view of sysadmins, one could.
>
> Actually, it is an attempt to dissuade proponents of the usual
> half-baked "solutions" from wasting the time of the folks who are
> actually trying to address the problem.  It is also a way to get
> interested parties up to speed on the current discussion.
>
>> It doesn't work: even after all of the half-baked solutions  have  
>> been
>> (rightfully) dismissed, the spam problem is still with us,  and email
>> is still slowly dying.
>
> Strange: Email works for me and everyone I know.  Recently, I went  
> from
> deleting ~5 spams a day to deleting ~10.  Oh, well, kinda sucks  
> that the
> USA is a spammer and botnet free-for-all.  Is it worse for you?
>
>> A more productive way to view (http://www.craphound.com/
>> spamsolutions.txt) is as a series of goals for a new email
>> infrastructure (avoid these known pitfalls).
>
> I'm grateful that you got my point.
>
>> My point is that eliminating Windows and Outlook would mean that
>> security attacks would start focusing on whatever became the existing
>> dominant platform.
>
> Correct.  And they would have a *much* harder time doing it.
>
> All this talk of elimination.  You can't eliminate any human behavior.
> You can only make it less rewarding, more difficult or less harmful.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork


More information about the FoRK mailing list