4 ms·

> If email didn't need fixing, spam wouldn't exist. Let's start with something easy - [1] define spam. [2] Can spam be identified with a purely mechanical (no

by anamax 2y ago

> If email didn't need fixing, spam wouldn't exist. Let's start with something easy - [1] define spam. [2] Can spam be identified with a purely mechanical (no humans involved) process? Do you have a definition of "spam" that is substantially different from "mail that I don't want." It's also interesting that you assume that spammers can't generate new identities. (Yes, you seem to think that introductions solves everything, but it doesn't) I ask that because "I don't want" requires mind-reading by the sender.

naasking 2y ago
I don't think you've actually read the details of my proposal because the fact that spammers can generate new identities is irrelevant. Nevertheless, to answer your question, spam is generally understood to be unsolicited email. The fact that computers can't read minds is exactly why they shouldn't try and should instead simply remove the core mechanism that enables spam to begin with: the easy ability to reach you because of guessable and harvestable global identifiers, and the difficulty of changing a compromised address means collecting and reselling addresses has value. Both of these properties are violated in this system. Minting new email guids is a trivial core operation that literally happ all of the time, and addresses cannot be guessed/brute-forced, therefore addresses have almost no value to spammers or brokers.
- anamax 2y ago
  You're right - I thought that you'd made one fatal error (sender registries) when you'd actually made a different one (introducers). > spam is generally understood to be unsolicited email Not so fast. If spam is universally disliked and should be eradicated, it can't include all unsolicited email. That's because people LIKE some unsolicited email. Unless you can distinguish unsolicited email that someone will like from unsolicited email that they won't like ... FWIW, you come across like the "advertising should be banned" people. (That's another group that confuses the existence of a problem with the existence of a solution that doesn't have any downsides. They fixate on their solution and try to define-away its downsides.) Advertising is a lot like spam. It is product information. If you don't care about the information, it is unwanted, but if you do.... The thing is, there's always someone who cares. FWIW, every time I've physically met someone who claims to be anti-advertising, said someone has happily displayed several pieces of advertising for products that said someone liked. When I point that out, "that's different" or "I don't mean that kind of advertising."
  - naasking 2y ago
    > That's because people LIKE some unsolicited email. Unless you can distinguish unsolicited email that someone will like from unsolicited email that they won't like ... Then they can opt into a service that sends them products they might like. Defaulting to opt-in, which is the current situation, is always terrible. Spam consists of a huge fraction of mail sent over the Internet, and vast majority don't want it, and it's a huge security problem (phishing, viruses etc.). If Gmail implements this kind of protocol, then they can opt you into their advertising list as part of the sign up process.

by anamax 2y ago

naasking 2y ago

I don't think you've actually read the details of my proposal because the fact that spammers can generate new identities is irrelevant. Nevertheless, to answer your question, spam is generally understood to be unsolicited email. The fact that computers can't read minds is exactly why they shouldn't try and should instead simply remove the core mechanism that enables spam to begin with: the easy ability to reach you because of guessable and harvestable global identifiers, and the difficulty of changing a compromised address means collecting and reselling addresses has value. Both of these properties are violated in this system. Minting new email guids is a trivial core operation that literally happ all of the time, and addresses cannot be guessed/brute-forced, therefore addresses have almost no value to spammers or brokers.

anamax 2y ago
You're right - I thought that you'd made one fatal error (sender registries) when you'd actually made a different one (introducers). > spam is generally understood to be unsolicited email Not so fast. If spam is universally disliked and should be eradicated, it can't include all unsolicited email. That's because people LIKE some unsolicited email. Unless you can distinguish unsolicited email that someone will like from unsolicited email that they won't like ... FWIW, you come across like the "advertising should be banned" people. (That's another group that confuses the existence of a problem with the existence of a solution that doesn't have any downsides. They fixate on their solution and try to define-away its downsides.) Advertising is a lot like spam. It is product information. If you don't care about the information, it is unwanted, but if you do.... The thing is, there's always someone who cares. FWIW, every time I've physically met someone who claims to be anti-advertising, said someone has happily displayed several pieces of advertising for products that said someone liked. When I point that out, "that's different" or "I don't mean that kind of advertising."
- naasking 2y ago
  > That's because people LIKE some unsolicited email. Unless you can distinguish unsolicited email that someone will like from unsolicited email that they won't like ... Then they can opt into a service that sends them products they might like. Defaulting to opt-in, which is the current situation, is always terrible. Spam consists of a huge fraction of mail sent over the Internet, and vast majority don't want it, and it's a huge security problem (phishing, viruses etc.). If Gmail implements this kind of protocol, then they can opt you into their advertising list as part of the sign up process.