Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)CALCITE(_dot_)RHYOLITE(_dot_)COM> writes:
I think the DCC is the best idea, but I may be biased.
The DCC is currently hitting more than 80% of spam. See
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ or http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/
I use a very large variety of techniques to block spam, and I'm
something like 95% successful. The 5% is starting to kill me, and
making things substantially more successful than that is likely not
possible without blocking lots of legitimate mail.
This is the point I've been trying to make. In the face of 55,000 spam
messages coming in this year, 95% is okay. In the face of 150,000 or
200,000 spam messages next year, it is not okay, and the bandwidth
alone is going to start to become a serious issue for me.
Spam is best defined as unsolicited bulk mail. Its content is
irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is unsolicited and bulk.
Bulk is the critical "scaling" aspect, because if only 1% of the
20,000,000 business in only the U.S. decided to send you monthly
reminders of their existence, your mailbox really would be useless.
This is key. People keep claiming "how can you possibly define spam
for legal purposes?"
Unsolicited+Bulk is all you need. My United skymiles summary is not
unsolicited -- neither is my IETF mailing list subscription. The query
that the guy I met at Usenix sends me asking if I'd like to buy the
product we discussed is not bulk.
It is sad that is also nonsense, because people who are able to make
telephone or in-person "cold calls" are incapable of understanding that
their message might not be welcome. You will never make those marketers
understand; you can only block them and make them fear your laws.
Indeed. Unfortunately, we do not yet have those laws.
Perry E. Metzger perry(_at_)piermont(_dot_)com
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."