 |
Features: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
With the purpose “To stem the unrelenting tidal wave of unsolicited, unwanted e-mail” the anti-spam research group proposes to redesign the Internet.
As reported in CNN : “To halt spam cold, many experts agree, requires a radical technical solution at the heart of the Internet. So an international organization best known for creating the Internet's plumbing has decided to explore fundamental changes in its architecture that would effect a fix. This would ultimately require a global consensus -- and software updates for everybody. “
I say: No! be aware of “redesigning the Internet” or changing the core architecture.
As we know, the Internet is the best network because it is the stupidest network: “the best network is a “stupid” network that does nothing but move bits. Only then is the network truly open to any and all services that want to use it, no matter how innovative or how unexpected. In the best network, the services live at the edges of the network and use the network to transport bits; they do not rely on any special characteristics of the network itself.”( Isenberg & Wienberger). The stupid network might be a myth but it is “a powerful and useful myth that should be the Holy Grail of Networking” (Andrew Odlyzko).
After all, the Internet is basically a neutral protocol to move bits, but it is a powerful protocol. It enables decentralized unmediated open communication and it bypasses hubs of power. It enables a robust and uninhibited discourse initiated at the edges. It enables new communication services to emerge so to better serve the needs of the users regardless of any economic incentive One may have. Don’t change it! The Internet is a design principle – you take away the architecture you take away the Internet!
Furthermore, be cautious of the alternative proposals to use ISP's and central filtering nodes to decide for you what is spam. Filtering which is done not by the end users may lead to a politically and socially biased filtering process. It may save you from Spam but limit your information environment. It may block some unsolicited commercial e-mail but also might be used to block online protest and voices of dissent. The system to be choosen must empower end-users to decide for themselves and not dellegate such decisions to unaccountable and non -transparent systems and entities. This is the Internet spirit of freedom - users are deciding for themselves. Keep it!
Spam is a nuisance and should be innovatively tackled. Yet, it is only a nuisance. You don’t fight a nuisance with a 800 pounds gorilla. Don’t get rid of the nuisance by destroying the glorious building. There are plenty of creative alternative means to stop Spam. Let’s try them first.
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Article Rating |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Monday, March 17 @ 11:22:06 EST | Guys:
There are a few simple ways to greatly reduce the amount of SPAM that you recieve.
First, it seems that the browser's default email address is the address most commenly read by the site which is gleaning that information from your machine without asking you. It only takes a second to reset the default account. I set a secondary account as my default when I am touring the internet. Say ORINHATCH@ USSENATE.GOV
Also, when you are required (or asked) to give an email address at a site to obtain access to information you want, try the address of your favorite Senator or Representative.
Tom |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Monday, March 17 @ 13:18:57 EST | The ARSG seems to be filled with people who have no idea what they're doing. Maybe if we ignore them, they'll go away. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Monday, March 17 @ 14:04:24 EST | The internet is in many ways a commons, meaning that anyone can use more than their "fair share" of bandwidth just by taking it. In that situation it is inevitable that a few bad apples will take advantage of everyone else, which is what happens with spam. A slashdot article last Wednesday reported that 40% of all email is now spam! This figure has nearly doubled in the past six months.
With the current architecture of the internet, this kind of abuse is inevitable, as there is no penalty. Tightening spam filters is only going to drive the spammers to increase their volume, making the problem worse. We need to look seriously at all possible fixes, including changes to the routing architecture. The Internet Research Task Force is taking exactly the correct approach, putting all possible solutions on the table.
It's absurd to demand that we retain the current architcture of the internet because of some meaningless slogan that stupid networks are better. This is a real problem that demands a solution. Mindless sloganeering and ideological roadblocks will not help us solve this problem. I hate to think what the net is going to be like in another year, but if things get as bad as I fear, your stupid slogan is going to be buried in the trash heap. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Monday, March 17 @ 17:01:27 EST | Many of the people on the ASRG mailing list do not advocate great changes in core internet technologies like routing (what makes the 'stupid internet' stupid). Many even oppose major changes in the MUA and MTA technologies (which allow you to read mail and move it around, respectively).
It is also a mistake to equate e-mail and its associated protocols with the desirable stupidity of the internet. Protocols like SMTP, IMAP, POP and HTTP are not part of the stupid internet. They are intelligent rules built upon it. To propose that such protocols should not evolve and change because a stupid internet is desirable is both misguided and reactionary, tantamount to saying that the HTML spec should not evolve because we like HTTP the way it is, even though HTML and HTTP are actually unrelated in how they work.
Finally, if you feel its important that your point be heard, maybe you should try posting it to the very group you are talking about. Membership in the research group is entirely voluntary. You can read the list and post your opinion opposing any such changes. You might have a different view of what goes on in the group if you participated in it instead of relying on second hand information as reported by CNN. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 @ 00:46:14 EST | I have been following the IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group mailing list since day one. I have good news and bad news for you folks.
The good news is that radical proposals that would require changes to many MTAs or MUAs are going no where fast. The quote from CNN appears to be from "many experts" who happen to not be in any way involved in the IRTF ASRG.
The bad news is that there haven't been any proposed solutions that seem to be that useful.
One of my favorite threads on the mailing list was titled "Do we need to do anything?" The point being that if we more aggressively push the partial solutions to spam that we already have, do we really need to do any more? Filter usage is becoming much better and much more widespread. DNS blacklists are seperating out the spam friendly ISPs from the good ISPs so false positives from them are decreasing. The number of open proxies seems to be levelling off or maybe even decreasing. The "just hit delete" crowd seems to be realizing that JHD isn't a solution and are willing to accept some changes.
Anyway, the CNN article appears to be lots of hype and not based on what the ASRG is actually discussing. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 @ 06:20:34 EST | Mr. Kozlovski should be ecouraged to 1) wait until better sources than CNN can be cited as the factbase for a cause about which he feels compelled to gush and 2) speak from facts, (in this case actual proposals handed down by the instance charged with the work would be appropriate), before launching into what another contributor above has aptly called " mindless sloganeering". |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 @ 08:42:24 EST | Spam Fixation, see:
http://www.frankston.com/public/writing.asp?name=spamfixation
I'm afraid of the spam hunters. They are trying to find all those bad people and get rid of them. It seems obvious that there is something called Spam and we must get rid of it. Having a simple term, even if it's still a trademark for Hormel's Deviled Ham, has misframed the problems.
The important point is that instead of whining about spammer and hunting down all those bad spammers, you need to recognize that you can't solve the spam problem because it's a small part of the larger problem of managing access to your attention. Simply being on mailing lists can overwhelm you even if it's by choice. If each incoming message were pretagged and gave you an indication of why you got it, then you can start to defend yourself.
The solution is not to blame the spammers, the solution is to take charge of our availability and gain control over our availability. We can start by recognizing that we are victims of bad tools and a lack of understanding more than we are victims of spammers.
|
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Don't Redisgn the Internet- We Prefer it Stupid! (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 @ 12:46:33 EST | In response to the comments which focus on other options for spam-blocking systems that do not involve changes of the core architecture I edited the piece and added:
"Furthermore, be cautious of the alternative proposals to use ISP's and central filtering nodes to decide for you what is spam. Filtering which is done not by the end users may lead to a politically and socially biased filtering process. It may save you from Spam but limit your information environment. It may block some unsolicited commercial e-mail but also might be used to block online protest and voices of dissent. The system to be choosen must empower end-users to decide for themselves and not dellegate such decisions to unaccountable and non -transparent entities. This is the Internet spirit of freedom - users are deciding for themselves. Keep it!"
Nimrod
|
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|
|