Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Solution to Spam
- Date: 26 Jun 2003 14:20:24 +0100
- Organization: The Flapjack Factory
> You have most of this all wrong. I don't know where most of you are getting
> your ideas from, but it seems as though you are scanning the posts I sent
> rather than reading them and taking time to study them.
Mark, the people who replied to your postings have indeed scanned them
in the correct sense of the meaning of "scan" rather than the sense
which you intended.
What it boils down to is that you want to create an incompatibility
layer in SMTP with some hand-wavey ideas about ensuring that each mail
sent is properly authenticated, for some broken definition of
"authenticated" (shall we call it "I Can't Believe It's Not
Authentication!"?). There are a large number of flaws in your proposal,
many of which have been pointed out by Der Mouse and other. Not least
among thesethe fact that it would require all mail systems everywhere on
the Internet to be upgraded or patched. And it's nothing less than
extraordinary that you feel that this could be sorted out "within a
matter of days", as you noted.
Let's be clear about this: bulk mail is good or at least neutral;
unsolicited bulk mail is bad, and if your proposal is going to throw the
baby out with the bathwater, then it is not worth implementing. But by
all means, come up with a complete solution, publish it on the web, and
we'll take a look at it - why don't you try going to the IETF, and
writing up an rfc, if you feel it's worth it?
> 'Mailing lists' as I said are unimportant however
Riiiight. So because you assert that the majority of Internet users
don't use mailing lists because "they cannot use them" (apparently), you
want to excise this particular feature forever more? Well, that's bound
to cause people to take your proposal seriously, no really :-)
Nick
