[REBOL] Re: MS, non-MS, and "email" as we know it
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 12-Jul-2003 8:22
Hi, Ken,
Just thinking out loud... (and there *is* REBOL relevance
further down! ;-)
Ken Cadby wrote:
> A lot of people will automatically reject a Microsoft solution,
> and will even deny it after it has achieved critical mass and
> major market share.
>
This list is the *last* place I'd ever have expected to hear
market share cited as a measure of fitness. (Have you turned
on a television lately? ;-)
> Am I the only one here who thinks their 2003 Outlook is going
> to be a major spam killer? What could be more secure than to
> only accept email from senders who are in your contact database?
> For me, adding someone (or the From address of a mailing list)
> to my contact db will be a small price to pay, to *completely*
> eliminate spam.
>
What do those questions have to do with Outlook? There are already
products available for whitelisting and other forms of spam control.
The fact that Microsoft (again) may copy features invented elsewhere
doesn't lead me to conclude that my problems will go away. (After
all, the fact that they -- belatedly -- entered the browser market
and then used their monopoly position to interfere with that market
hasn't prevented pop-up ads, pop-under ads, nor browser-based holes
in security!)
In almost no time Google pointed me to
http://tmda.net/
> TMDA is an OSI certified software application designed to
> significantly reduce the amount of SPAM/UCE (junk-mail)
> you receive.
(Unix server based)
http://au2.spamassassin.org/index.html
(a cross-platform tool, written in Perl)
At the client side, Mac OS/X Mail contains Bayesian spam detection
which can be trained/tuned for the user's preferences. Netscape 7.1
has similar features.
However, the real solution is server side, so that I don't waste the
connect time or cpu cycles on my desk/lap dealing with the garbage.
The company where I work implements spam detection/routing centrally,
with the digital sewage routed to separate storage. I suspect that
service providers who would offer similar capabilities would find a
ready audience.
> The only major question left might be...
>
You outlined an approach for contact origination that seems quite
reasonable (especially if implemented server-side), and is also
clearly implementable in REBOL. Such an implementation has the
added virtue of being platform-neutral.
This could be developed either as a mail client, a server-side
tool, or packaged as a service-by-subscription.
> ...
> Show me how I'm wrong about this. I am *not* pro-MS. However, for
> those of us (esp myself) who have been thinking about other
> solutions, we still won't be able to deny MS their huge power any
> time in the near future. I think now is the time to be the first
> ones to jump on the first viable anti-spam bandwagon...
> or be left behind.
>
Re "other solutions", have you looked at Jabber?
Having been involved in computing for my entire career (beginning
with my first programming course in 1968), I have absolutely *no*
faith that big, entrenched corporations will save the world. In
fact, history (within my career) tells me that sooner or later
they begin to believe their own PR, think of themselves as the
center-of-the-world/source-of-all-good-bits and get blindsided by
a great idea from the little guys. (Do you think REBOL is a good
idea? 'nuff said)
Burroughs, DEC, and Data General all had great ideas, and made
significant contributions to the development of computing (both
academically and in the marketplace), but missed the significance
of the high cost of totally proprietary platforms.
IBM totally missed the desktop/distributed computing paradigm shift.
Microsoft ignored networking until Novell proved its viability for
the business market. Microsoft (in the person of Bill Gates) made
public remarks disparaging the significance of the Internet.
In the last two cases, Microsoft was able to use market position
and financial resources to turn the ship around. At some point
there will come an idea that is sufficiently (and likely culturally)
different that The Computing Establishment won't recognize (or
embrace-and-extend) it quickly enough. (At that point most big
companies turn to the lawyers and/or the checkbook...)
We (the human race, collectively) don't yet understand the role or
value of high-bandwidth, ultra-low-cost communication. As usual,
the abusers of their fellow-men are quick to jump on a new concept
when they think they can turn it to their profit/ad/vantage, but
that's only temporary.
Consider the abuse of the telephone (and telephone owners) by the
junk-phone-call industry. A range of interesting responses have
occurred, from unlisted numbers to caller ID, to state- and US-
wide "do not call" lists. [Perhaps some of our international list
participants can educate me on whether the problem is as bad in
the world at large, and what's being done on the larger scale.]
I think it's too early to declare anything as a final solution
given the tremendous creativity unleashed on (and by) the 'Net.
(And I, speaking strictly for myself, don't want to invite an
800-pound gorilla with a fly-swatter to take up residence in my
house just because someone left the back door open and a few
mosquitoes slipped in... ;-)
Thanks for the stimulating post, and for listening!
-jn-
