At 02:21 PM 6/2/03 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
...
I'm not saying it can't happen, but
asking for a better reason than "it would be nice" and "maybe someday
it will help somewhat."
Why do you want a better reason?
Do you think the idea has merit?
Is it worthy of further investigation?
Would implementing it cause problems for the mail system in general?
...
All these things are changes, and changes take time.
But the costs are small, and the potential benefits large.
I'm made bazillions of low cost eventually high profit suggestions in
zillions of areas over the last 35 years. If even 10% of them had
been adopted, we would be in heaven...or something. I've long since
realized there are two kinds of changes, those that I can make personally
or that can be made by people I know and can convince, and very long
shots that are almost always wastes of time to even talk about except
while "shooting the bull."
Is there some other topic you feel is more worthy of discussion?
Most spam isn't going to look like a challenge until challenges
are wide spread.
Yes, and C/R systems are unlikely to ever be widespread.
I prefer to discuss the problems they can generate and potential
changes that lessen the impact of those problems,
even if the probability of wide spread deployment is remote.
Talk is cheap, and I prefer to try the cheap stuff first.
Even with a crypto-secure mail system,
I can't see any way to prevent someone on whom you're dependant
from abusing that and spamming through the whitelisted channel.
My best answer so far is "If spam only came from the companies
you dealt with, that's better than the current situation.".
On the contrary, junk mail from your correspondents "scales."
Assuming that they don't increase the volume of spam they send
based on their ability to do so.
But even if they do, still better than the current situation.
Practically no one's correspondents increase with the size of the
Internet (at least not this century).
Quibble: Most models I've seen suggest that the number of
interactions increases as the cost of communication decreases,
but it would be considerably more modest growth.
The melt-down problem of spam
would not apply if you only received junk mail from people and outfits
you know. Besides, when one of your whitelisted correspondents goes
over to the dark side, it takes only a moment to fix the problem
forever.
Maybe, maybe not.
Most people would be unwilling to de-whitelist their bank, insurance
company, or domain registrar even if they started getting spammed
by them. The probability that an "important message" really is
important (to the receiver) is too high. These companies are
already stuffing other peoples junk mail in with the bills.
I can't see any reason they won't do the same with email.
More responsive than the typical spammer of today,
they'd probably limit the quantities of spam to below the
average customers pain threshold. No out right fraud,
or illicit come ons, but not an end to spam.
Scott Nelson <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg