you are a big person Esa, and much respect! -please do not lurk? please help me work through the concepts below, so i can also understand it more clearly or adjust/fix/add to my own POV? I too am an idiot as I do silly things like rant and I apologise for my emotional reaction :) just that I would like life to be fair and when I see tech changes that large business uses to grow an existing monopoly even more, it triggers emotional response, which is completely wrong. Regarding email, Google and Microsoft already have a monopoly, when either of them employ weird tactics, like re-writing or obtuse of email headers to deflect poorly on an innocent receiver, this does aid to enforce (and grow) their monopoly and it serves to kill off the small, ethical, honest providers. I recall my first spam/abuse complaint :) 1988 I requested compuserve to stop sending me unwanted comms about their dialup options - good times :) I am clearly not so good at communications, so please bear with me... Why this type of abuse needs discussion here is two fold: Firstly, I do believe that abuse needs additional layer definitions/wording as we become more sophisticated and start to more clearly see how and what is abuse, we do realize that what came before was abusive, we just did not know enough to understand the ethics of it, at that time... Secondly, if one flies, these layers would each have their own set of ethics Additional layers: If one applies the same differences between a domain provider of email and an actual domain (example many different people, companies, and well everyone? has email at gmail.com (except maybe me - i deleted my account recently, i am no longer a google fanboy) and a single business domain (so - consider the purpose / use / application ) in the definition of the ethics to the definition of abuse itself. Just to backtrack... lets look at how GOOGLE came to dominate the email landscape: Gmail sent out what we now know, was SPAM! to various techies and mailing lists, saying that that techie, mailing list subscriber, had only 5 LIMITED TIME invites, that each could be used for a unique email address at gmail.com Google promised that - this would be exclusive (which was bullshit) Google promised that - Only these 5 invites would ever be able to have an address at gmail.com (which was bullshit) Google made the offer so sincere that nobody even thought to compare it with the various offers for c-i al is and other medication spam that was already prevalent at the time... Anyway, Google acted Unethically, dishonestly and even sent out MASS UNSOLICITED EMAILS They also did various other interesting things, yet, Google enforces "google ethics" on the Internet - they do this visibly and as public as possible, there must be no single person that thinks that google is in fact unethical themselves. Okay, sorry about the backtrack/diatribe, just some background for those that did not know that Google also acts unethically, and abusively and actually has a track record of doing so, themselves. The point of layers are : As we become more sophisticated and we understand abuse better, even IPv4/6 abuse, there begs additional words? concepts? for specifically the technical aspects evolving and affecting the ethics of abuse itself. This thread of an exact example of such a layer, in the email sphere (also applies to IP) where it is not wthical to re-write headers for a 'public' or broad domain email provider and whereas it would be less unethical for a direct or singular (as in a company email domain) to re-write the same headers. Then, if that reasoning is non flawed? is it? (It does need some additional defining/discussion? ) then to define the ethics of additional layers, or actually maybe just to identify that abuse ethics needs clearer development? andre On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:03:44 +0200 Esa Laitinen <esa@laitinen.org> wrote:

Ahh. I didn't think I would put my foot in my mouth this way, and I do apologize the list for not paying enough attention to what was written. Teaches humility, this does.

@Andre: I do know how email works. I just misread the bounce in the quoted sentence as "complaint", twice. I apologize.

I'll go back lurking. I don't wish nanaesque behaviour to come back, there is enough of that already in the social media.

esa

I wrote this: http://ascams.com/email-marketing/ would anyone please be so kind as to help/correct/add specifically point number 9 - anything that I have missed or, as there is point of view / POV (mine) - please comment so that I can see if I am wrong or by omission, am not reflecting the topic fairly? andre On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:37:09 +0200 andre@ox.co.za wrote:

you are a big person Esa, and much respect! -please do not lurk? please help me work through the concepts below, so i can also understand it more clearly or adjust/fix/add to my own POV?

I too am an idiot as I do silly things like rant and I apologise for my emotional reaction :)

just that I would like life to be fair and when I see tech changes that large business uses to grow an existing monopoly even more, it triggers emotional response, which is completely wrong.

Regarding email, Google and Microsoft already have a monopoly, when either of them employ weird tactics, like re-writing or obtuse of email headers to deflect poorly on an innocent receiver, this does aid to enforce (and grow) their monopoly and it serves to kill off the small, ethical, honest providers.

I recall my first spam/abuse complaint :) 1988 I requested compuserve to stop sending me unwanted comms about their dialup options - good times :)

I am clearly not so good at communications, so please bear with me...

Why this type of abuse needs discussion here is two fold:

Firstly, I do believe that abuse needs additional layer definitions/wording as we become more sophisticated and start to more clearly see how and what is abuse, we do realize that what came before was abusive, we just did not know enough to understand the ethics of it, at that time...

Secondly, if one flies, these layers would each have their own set of ethics

Additional layers: If one applies the same differences between a domain provider of email and an actual domain (example many different people, companies, and well everyone? has email at gmail.com (except maybe me - i deleted my account recently, i am no longer a google fanboy)

and a single business domain (so - consider the purpose / use / application ) in the definition of the ethics to the definition of abuse itself.

Just to backtrack...

lets look at how GOOGLE came to dominate the email landscape:

Gmail sent out what we now know, was SPAM! to various techies and mailing lists, saying that that techie, mailing list subscriber, had only 5 LIMITED TIME invites, that each could be used for a unique email address at gmail.com

Google promised that - this would be exclusive (which was bullshit) Google promised that - Only these 5 invites would ever be able to have an address at gmail.com (which was bullshit) Google made the offer so sincere that nobody even thought to compare it with the various offers for c-i al is and other medication spam that was already prevalent at the time...

Anyway, Google acted Unethically, dishonestly and even sent out MASS UNSOLICITED EMAILS

They also did various other interesting things, yet, Google enforces "google ethics" on the Internet - they do this visibly and as public as possible, there must be no single person that thinks that google is in fact unethical themselves.

Okay, sorry about the backtrack/diatribe, just some background for those that did not know that Google also acts unethically, and abusively and actually has a track record of doing so, themselves.

The point of layers are : As we become more sophisticated and we understand abuse better, even IPv4/6 abuse, there begs additional words? concepts? for specifically the technical aspects evolving and affecting the ethics of abuse itself.

This thread of an exact example of such a layer, in the email sphere (also applies to IP) where it is not wthical to re-write headers for a 'public' or broad domain email provider and whereas it would be less unethical for a direct or singular (as in a company email domain) to re-write the same headers.

Then, if that reasoning is non flawed? is it? (It does need some additional defining/discussion? ) then to define the ethics of additional layers, or actually maybe just to identify that abuse ethics needs clearer development?

andre

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:03:44 +0200 Esa Laitinen <esa@laitinen.org> wrote:

...

Ahh. I didn't think I would put my foot in my mouth this way, and I do apologize the list for not paying enough attention to what was written. Teaches humility, this does.

@Andre: I do know how email works. I just misread the bounce in the quoted sentence as "complaint", twice. I apologize.

I'll go back lurking. I don't wish nanaesque behaviour to come back, there is enough of that already in the social media.

esa