John R. Levine wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected
VBR effect. (If that's meant as an apotropaic stance, I have no
objection. Otherwise,) I wonder why we shouldn't push VBR as hard as
we can, if it can stop spam.
Could you point out where anyone, anywhere has claimed that VBR would
"stop spam"? It's a technology to whitelist mail from people you trust.
...I trust as not being spammers, you mean. Isn't that the same thing?
Self-referencing DNS based techniques are out there already, and have
been criticized claiming that it is actually easier for spammers to
comply than it is for legitimate users. Hence a third party is
required. Reverse DNS and whois databases unfortunately are not apt.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
What I don't understand is your certitude about specific impact.
It's not certitude, it's hope. OTOH, do we have anything better?
(We're not allowed to use nuclear weapons, are we ;-))
Anyone who is certain of the second- and third- and fourth- order effects of
adopting a particular protocol is ignoring the pattern of surprise that
accompanies real-world developments for anything with a social component.
The reality of VBR is that it is almost entirely subject to social forces.
Strongly agreed! It will only work if all the people will like it, and
agree on a restricted set of vouch-for operators, and use it. Likely?
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
John Lennon, 1971
Ietf mailing list