Obviously we want to reduce spam volume. My approach is all about that.
From your arguments, I have the strong impression that your approach
is entirely unrelated to the problem being discussed in this
Your goal is to reduce the number of spam messages visible to end
That's part of it, but only a part.
Let's not confuse spam QUANTITY (number of messages) with spam VOLUME (number
messages * average size of a spam message).
That's a good goal, but has nothing to do with reducing the
amount of data processed by ISPs who operate SMTP server farms for
their customers. Let's not mix up the issues.
First, if we were ever to reach the state where ZERO (or near zero) spam
messages reached end recipients, then spamming would be 100% without profitable
return to the spammers... it wouldn't continue for long under such conditions.
Second, if spammers get the message that spam containing attachments or that is
HTML-burdened has GREATLY REDUCED chances of being delivered and read, then
they're likely to stop using those approaches (and those approaches hugely
inflate the size of most spam messages). Thus, a likely HUGE reduction in spam
volume (including, in particular, that which ISPs receive and process).
Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support free and fair US elections! http://stickers.defend-democracy.org
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
Asrg mailing list