Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:16:46 -0600 (MDT)

> From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>

> ...
> vern - as much as i appreciate the modern dictum that "everyone is a
> villain", i don't think it would kill you every now and then to look for a
> benign explanation to things.

Spam is not about villainy, fraud, or public services.  It is only
about consent to receive bulk mail and scaling for individual mailboxes.

If you don't make the content of spam irrelevant, then you slide down
a slope that prevents you from complaining about any spam or enforcing
anti-spam terms of service.  if you excuse benign unsolicited bulk
mail because it serves a public good, such as about rolling blackouts
or IIS worms, then when can you ever complain about spam?  For every
unsolicited bulk message, there is at least one person and usually
many who honestly believe that it is in the public interest or the
interest of its targets, even if it porn, a chain letter, or one of
those fraudulent but not illegal (as far as I know) $25 vanity Who's
Who listings.  If you allow one person to use unsolicited bulk mail
to maintain a registry of people who live in your neighborhood, or
write RFC's, then how can you criticize or terminate the accounts of
others who are send unsolicited bulk mail for other purposes?

The evil in spam is not advertising or crass commercialism, but scaling.
If 1% of the ~20,000,000 U.S. companies sent monthly reminders of their
existence to 1% of the mailboxes on the net, how many messages would you
receive daily?  What if those reminders came from all over the world?  If
every reasonable Who's Who that might want to list you sent you quarterly
reminders about your entry, including people named Rose, people with
mtview.ca.us addresses, RFC authors, dead tree authors, and people who
attended the first InterOp in 1986, how many reminders would you get?
In how many different U.S. Census categories do you fit?  Many of them
could use a registry so that members could find each other or be found
by other interested parties.

What would you say if many of the many third party RFC repositories
started sending you periodic reminders to update your biographical and
bibliographical entries?  So far it seems that only this single
outfit is doing that, and that's part of why I agreed that you might
decide you had or would solicit this bulk mail and so say it is not spam.
But if you don't draw the on principle, how do you draw it at all?

> ...
> in fact, i'll go out on a limb and say that i'd certainly be happy if the
> rfc editor had the resources to maintain such a database.

That's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this bulk mail.

I think you can make a case that submitting an I-D to the RFC Editor
includes to a solicitation for related bulk mail from the Editor for
at least the life of the I-D.  Shepherding an I-D until it gets an
RFC number may also amount to a lifetime solicitation of bulk mail
from the Editor.  Thus, if this stuff were sent on behalf of the RFC
Editor maintaining such a database, it would be solicited bulk mail
and so not spam.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:16:34 -0400

> But if you don't draw the on principle, how do you draw it at all?

You draw the line based on the fact that you put your contact information
in a publication in the first place. If you don't want to be contacted
about an RFC you've written then don't put any contact information
in it. IMNSHO, the simple act of putting your contact information
in there is a solicitation for contact about that document, bulk or
otherwise.

> Editor maintaining such a database, it would be solicited bulk mail

Nope. If you don't want to be contacted about the document you wrote/co-wrote
then don't put the contact info in there in the first place. What
is it there for if not to contact you about that document, regardless
of whether or not the contact is automated or not?

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
[email-masked]      |                              | http://www.neonym.net

    Democracy gives an aura of legitimacy to acts that 
    would otherwise be deemed tyranny.
					 -- Walter Williams

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:24:54 -0700

vern - one could just as easily argue that the 2K blather you just dumped
into my mailbox is both unsolicited and bulk.

talk about the proverbial mountain the mole hill.

my advice: get some perspective or get better pharmaceuticals...

/mtr

---

From: "Gary E. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:48:54 -0700 (PDT)

Yo mtr!

I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question
was opt-out.  If you can not see the difference then we have big problems.

I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from
under spam.  It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this
list.  Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
	[email-masked]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:20:38 -0700

> list.  Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world.

hi. we're not talking about a "mail list" so the issue of "opt-in/out" is
meaningless.

all we have is this: a guy authors an rfc and gets an e-mail by someone
maintaining a public database of rfc authors.

there is only one thing that calling this "spam" achieves -- it reduces the
impact of the term "spam". when a word means all things, it means nothing.

let's keep the powder dry for "real" spam, shall we?

/mtr

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:13:53 -0700

Michael Mealling wrote:
	[..]
> of whether or not the contact is automated or not?

As an RFC author, I saw the same message Vern did, I replied to
it, and was otherwise untroubled. No problem. But your logic is
wrong.  We put our contact information in there so people can
ask questions about the technical work in the document. The
publishers of the document may additionally contact us to keep
their author information up to date (if they have the desire and
resources, which apparently they do not). However, it is *not*
a solicitation for any and all random organizations to contact
us on a regular basis to keep their own databases updated.

Although in this case I don't mind networksorcery keeping a
separate database, in general I only consider my 'publisher' to
have the implicit right to include me in automated "where are you
now?" emails.

cheers,
gja
____________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                http://members.home.net/garmitage/

---

From: "TRAICOVN (NW)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:26:02 -0400 (EDT)

*Steps out on proverbial limb*

Under the current description that I have seen, this email is in fact SPAM
because you are not expecting it.

I personally did not receive this message, and have been on the IETF list
for awhile, without participating much.
Guess you could call me a lurker...

Here's my point, I don't know much about this guy, but what has happened
according to what I have seen is he is trying to compile a list (perhaps
to sell, perhaps to give away free) to the public, and more importantly
companies. He has sent out an email to everyone who has published or
participated in an RFC, most likely because he wants to ask permision to
publish their name to avoid any legal entanglements.

IMHO, a SPAM email is the typical 'loose hundreds of pounds now' or 'free
live teen girls stripping' type emails. Emails that come out of the blue
and honestly have no relevance. The other day I received an offer for free
pantyhose, and I'm a 19 year old male. I don't wear pantyhose, and don't
intend to start.

I guess my point is, from what it sounds like, this guy wasn't
intentionally spamming you, he was just trying to ask your permission or
give you a heads up on what's going on. Email him regarding the subjexct,
but don't bring it out onto the IETF list. worse than anything is the
amount of SPAM that gets sent to [email-masked] and some other mailing
lists I'm on where THE ENTIRE LIST is spammed.

I doubt this guy has sent out a REALLY LARGE email message to you with
pictures and stuff or attachments. But if this email message is such a
problem then why not post it to the list so we can get an idea of how bad
it is?

*Steps back to the shadows, engages anti-flame device, tables the whole
spamming issue*
____________________________________________________________________________
 * TRAICOVN  ----------------------------------- http://www.traicovn.com *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:37:10 -0500

> because you are not expecting it.

Oh! Shoot!
so I receive LOTS of SPAM daily!

Saludos.
Regards..
_________________________________________
José Manuel Arronte García
Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk

Meg@Red Veracruz
Telecomunicaciones y Entretenimiento SA
Av. S. Díaz Mirón 2625-A
Fracc. Moderno
Veracruz Ver. MÉXICO

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:07:48 -0400

I'm with Marshall here. Much as it would be nice if everything was
black and white (or one and zero), that's not the way the real world
of human communications is. The edge of the sharpest, straightest
razor blabe looks like a mountain range under a microscope. I can
understand why someone would think of this mail as spam, although I
didn't, but clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery
stuff. I suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher
priority.

Donald

From:  "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:  <011b01c1116a$388720f0$8753cf3f@FATORA>
To:  "Gary E. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Cc:  <[email-masked]>, "Marshall Rose" <[email-masked]>
References:  <[email-masked]>
Date:  Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:20:38 -0700

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:46:35 -0500

>hi. we're not talking about a "mail list" so the issue of "opt-in/out" is

the fact that addressees are derived incrementally, rather than causing a 
"mass" mailing strikes me as a minor point.  The mass aspects of spam are 
irritating, but not what causes the bulk of public concern.

Spam is most typically defined as unsolicited commercial email.  By that 
definition, the mailing in question qualifies.  And it is entirely opt-out 
based, since the recipient has no choice about receiving the initial mailing.

>impact of the term "spam". when a word means all things, it means nothing.

for all that, I agree we need to be very careful about definitions and 
usage.  In fact, one might wish to have codification?

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:21:59 -0400

>because you are not expecting it.
Let's see.  You subscribed to the list, so you had to expect to get 
messages from the list.  Beyond that, you didn't expect the individual 
message--when it arrived, who sent it, what it contained.  Guess what? 
That's how communication works--in fact, that's the *point* of 
communication.  If all messages you received were expected, such that 
you knew everything about them in advance, they'd be useless.

-- 
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"How many lifeboats are there?" "None." "Did you|
[email-masked]|*count* them?" "Twice."                         |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:04:06 -0500

At 10:07 AM 7/22/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery

an excellent goal.  how can we objectively differentiate the one from the 
other?

d/

----------

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:31:53 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam

> an excellent goal.  how can we objectively differentiate the one from the

Simply moving away from the IPv4 Sewer works wonders.

The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"....

...here are some links...
http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Ebersman)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:54:26 -0700

dee3> clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery stuff. I
dee3> suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher
dee3> priority.

dcrocker> an excellent goal.  how can we objectively differentiate the
dcrocker> one from the other?

Fleming> Simply moving away from the IPv4 Sewer works wonders.

Wrapping aluminum foil around one's head and moving into a packing
crate does cut down on the number of telemarketers bothering you, but
it doesn't really solve the problem. It just indicates strongly that
you're nuts.

Next...

--
			Paul

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:01:52 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Ebersman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam 

> Fleming> Simply moving away from the IPv4 Sewer works wonders.

Don't forget....Keep at least one IPv4 address....

http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona