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

paul < paul at remsset.com > on > Thu Dec 7 22:47:30 PST 2006

Get a Mac?  Use *nix?  That's bullshit.  You know it.

I've had my domain since May 2002 and damn near no spam until February 
of this year.  I have several addresses going into one mailbox.  I had a 
little buying spree on eBay last January... and now I get spam, tons of 
spam a day on just two addresses.  I consider last checking mail about 
2AM and getting up in the morning about 9AM to check mail and T'bird 
saying I have 277 messages and the filters sort half as spam "a lot". 
And t'bird has been learning for about a week....  A year ago I got 
maybe 2 spams a day.

How some pill is going to grow my unit is beyond me.  I have enough 
stuff in my underwear.  I've been told I have too much stuff.  And 
that's too much information.  My boobs, well, being a guy, I don't need 
them. And my ass ain't fat.  The spam I get is really stupid stuff.

Please explain how mail.app is going to stop the spam *I get*.  Explain 
how a Mac mail app is going to cure the spam problem I have.

Sure, if I was a great guru I could do whatever and filter the stuff at 
the server.  But I'm not a great guru.  I just have my sucky site hosted 
on DreamHost and I get my mail from their servers.  My ISP is only for 
connecting to the 'net.

Talk down and use little words like I'm a 1st grade kid.  I work at HEB. 
  I'm used to being talked to by customers like I'm some kind of moron. 
  Go ahead and insult me.  You'll still get home with your potatoes on 
top of your tomatoes and kiwis and mangos.  ;)  Oh yeah... we can 
artfully load your trunk so it looks good but the first time you touch 
the brakes the bananas are pudding.  We don't do that shit to be mean. 
We just be morons, eh?


paul





Jeff Bone wrote:
> 
> 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.

-- 

paul
_____________________________________
    http://remsset.com


    Not tonight, dear.  I have a modem.


More information about the FoRK mailing list