At 2:18 AM -0700 4/22/03, Murali Krishna Devarakonda wrote:
I firmly believe that none of the anti-spam companies are out there
with any serious desire to prevent spam, but simply to profit from
the problem. Nothing wrong with that- that's the American way.
Nothing like starting out a discussion by calling a number of people
on the list liars. But what the heck, I'll keep reading.
- a potential sender must "request" "permission" to send to a receiver
- the "request" and the "permission" **should not** be emails-
instead they should be a API-based feature of the
protocol, like 'ping'
% implications:
$ since there would be *no message* included in the request,
there's no value in it for the spammer, and
there's no pain for the receiver.
$ the number of times a request can be made again
should be configurable- never, once in a month or year, etc.
And who will enforce that?
But you missed the biggest implication. I have to be online in order
to receive a request. Not only that, I have to be on the internet.
$ a global identity- the digital equivalent
of a unique-SSN should be required for all email communication
- Politically infeasible
- Technically improbable
- Mind-boggling infrastructure requirements
- I assume you really didn't mean SSN. Mentioning SSN's in any
discussion of "identity" is trolling for a flame war
- So who is going to make sure that [pick-a-random-country] is going
to hand out only one identity to anyone who gives them some money
--
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