| |
|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: How to Stop Spam. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
How to Stop Spam
by Decius at 12:51 pm EST, Jan 26, 2005 |
AOL Postmaster on stopping spam. He's not wrong. ISPs ought to police their networks for security issues, and I think that the government ought to be greasing the wheels for this through liability limitation and possibly tax incentives. Its in the public interest. I also think his proposal for a private network isn't entirely unreasonable at this point, but the devil is in coming up with a social contract that everyone is happy with and finding a way to govern it effectively, and you can see how well ICANN is doing with that. It would be hijacked to serve special interests just like ICANN has been. |
| |
RE: How to Stop Spam
by dmv at 3:57 pm EST, Jan 26, 2005 |
Decius wrote:
] AOL Postmaster on stopping spam. He's not wrong. ISPs ought to
] police their networks for security issues, and I think that
] the government ought to be greasing the wheels for this
] through liability limitation and possibly tax incentives. Its
] in the public interest. Tax incentives? He's definately not wrong. I'm not a kneejerk antigovernment type, but I think if the government is imposing incentives, it should probably come from the other way. To run a network connection, one should be force to assume the liabilities and problems of running one securely. How you fine people for failing to live up to the responsibilities can be sorted out in the private and public sectors, but I'm not sure why we should be offering initial discounts to do what you should be doing. If uplinks charged more for unsecured traffic, perhaps. |
|
| | |
RE: How to Stop Spam
by Decius at 4:56 pm EST, Jan 26, 2005 |
dmv wrote:
] He's definately not wrong. I'm not a kneejerk antigovernment
] type, but I think if the government is imposing incentives, it
] should probably come from the other way. To run a network
] connection, one should be force to assume the liabilities and
] problems of running one securely. How you fine people for
] failing to live up to the responsibilities can be sorted out
] in the private and public sectors, but I'm not sure why we
] should be offering initial discounts to do what you should be
] doing. If uplinks charged more for unsecured traffic,
] perhaps. A couple of comments: 1. Going from an environment with no regulation to one in which there are carrots is easy. Moving to one in which their are sticks is not. 2. You don't have to comply with an incentive. You have to comply with a requirement. (Therefore it isn't really correct to say that incentives are "imposed." Requirements are imposed. Incentives are offered.) There are several reasons why it is not advisable to have the government institute national standards for network operation that are required by law. One size may not fit every network, and the government is even more apt to impose specific regulations that limit innovation or that serve special interests. I don't want Congress telling me what services I can run on my hosts. 3. Incentives help you balance costs. If something is a public good but its more expensive then its worth to a company, we can create incentive structures that help the company justify the costs. This works really well with polution reduction, where we have a market for pollutants that creates an economic incentive for plants to stay ahead of the curve by selling their unused emmission quota to other plants. |
|
How to Stop Spam
by cyantist at 11:58 am EST, Jan 26, 2005 |
AOL Postmaster on stopping spam |
How to Stop Spam
by bucy at 2:23 pm EST, Feb 1, 2005 |
]
] "Spam is a completely solvable problem. And it does not
] take finding every Richter, Jaynes, Bridger, etc to do it
] (although it certainly is part of the solution).
]
] In fact it does not take email identity technologies
] either (although these are certainly needed and part of
] the solution).
]
] The solution is getting messaging providers to take
] responsibility for their lame email systems that they set
] up without much thought and continue to not care much
] about when they become overrun by spammers. This is just
] security and every admin/network operator has to deal
] with it. We just have a lot of providers not bothering to
] care. |
|
|
