From: "Paul H. Merrill" <PaulMerrill@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:58:05 +0800
To: Cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohelsux)
Message-ID: <000a01be18fe$981008a0$1544ae98@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between
>>solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off.  If you would like
>>to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using
>>the outdated address, not the company that repsonded.
>>
>>PHM
>>
>>AKA PHMerrill@AOL.Com (among other names and addresses)
>
>Again, the clueless asshole known as Paul *H.* Merrill jumps up and defends
>AOL, incompetently-written web sites, and morons everywhere.
>
I obviously don't defend morons everywhere -- I didn't defend Mr Anonymous.

>Someone told AOL to mail cypherpunks@toad.com. AOL could have checked to
see
>if the originating site was under the toad.com domain. This is trivial.
They
>didn't. It's rather easy to just require that somebody trying to mail an
>address under the toad.com domain submit the request from an address under
>toad.com.
>
I regularly send from one domain while requesting a "something" to be dealt
with through another domain.  (A little something called work, for instance.
Shoot, even the ACM.Org address doen't pass that check but it certainly is
valid and unambiguously mine.

>In other words, Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types your
>address into some system and asks it to send you 512MB of MPEG video,
that's
>okay because it was solicited. It wasn't solicited by you but somebody
>solicited it.
>
My point exactly -- so when you want to ream someone for the half gig MPEG,
ream the requester.

>Oops. That's "blatent propoganda." I'd better rephrase. In other words,
>Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types YOUR address into fifty
>different systems, signs you up for a bunch of mailing lists, and generally
>causes you a lot of inconvenience, that's okay because it was solicited.
You
>don't know who it was solicited by, but somebody obviously did. If you then
>object to the sites sending you mail rather than just silently
>unsubscribing yourself every week, are you then just 'some clueless
asshole'?
>
The totality is not Okay.  But the individual systems that were solicited to
send are not at fault, assuming that they give me an out.  OTOH the asshole
that requested it all is quite another topic. That "spammer" is the one that
should be taken to task.

>Are spammers now not to be held accountable for their spamming because they
>bought a list of addresses from someone who claimed that the people all
>asked to be on the mailing list?
>
there is a significant difference between buying a list and answering a
request.  Granted that the net effect of having a confirmation message sent
to some one person shows little difference, but the methodology and intent
are nt the same at all.

>Why don't we just sign Cypherpunks up for Ignition-Point, the FP list, the
>ACLU action advisories, Sixdegrees, and whatever else we can find? Or
should
>We just sign up Paul, really, because he doesn't have a problem with this.
>In fact I'm sure we could make some 'marketting research' to show that he
>might be interested. Hey let's get the entire CDR subscription list and
>sign everybody up for FP and ACLU because if you're on Cypherpunks you're
>obviously interested in those things.

The analogous activities have been going on for many years and they have
never been a Good Thing.
>
>The root of the problem is sites which require email addresses for no good
>reason, and/or don't have the decency to perform a simple check to see if
>the domains match. They're lazy. They're irresponsible. When confronted, no
>matter how civil, they react much like you do, Paul, and they don't want to
>be inconvenienced by having to fix their usually badly-designed web sites.
>
Anyone that believes that a domain check will do anything other than check a
domain is delusional.  Hey, they even think like the post awful -- one
person, one email address.

>If I recall correctly Tim has the same opinion and has stated it a few
>times as have others so I'm not alone.
>
>Now I leave you, Paul, so you can go back to your 24 hour vigil and you and
>your quick response team can scour the net for attacks against AOL and the
>true clueless assholes, and defend them with your last breath.
>
Why, thank you.  But it is not really needed.
>Yet Another 'Clueless Asshole'
>
I never cease to be amazed at how little grasp of the concept of causality
so many presumably technically literate people are today.

When one wishes to remove a problem, it is a much better approach to attack
the cause than to attack the symptom.

PHM