At 7:24 AM -0400 4/8/03, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
I think the problem is rather that forged return addresses make people
reluctant to use otherwise attractive methods for spam control. A content
based spam detector that had a 1% false positive rate might be acceptable
if senders were informed that their message had been rejected, but not if
As a counter-point, consider challenge-response systems, which are
happy to send bounces to all senders, assumed spam or not. Part of
the difference might be that individuals probably don't have a big
problem with bounces, but an ISP doing bounces is basically an
indiscriminate weapon. That's a good argument for a bulk bounce
protocol.
on the floor. (I realize that there is always an option to deliver to a
spam folder, but I have never understood why that was an improvement over
ordinary delivery).
It's not ideal, but it is far faster to scan a folder of "probably
spam" than to try and filter spam out of your real email.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg