The main reason so many users end up sending HTML-burdened E-mail is because
they don't know any better, and because it is the default.
Most HTML-burdened E-mail generated by the VAST majority of users never
use any
of the formatting (or other such) features at all. For all of those
messages,
the HTML-burdening only just makes the messages bigger without conveoying ANY
more information.
#1: Majority of users and MUAs send HTML email by default
That's what I just said.
#2: Changing those settings can take months and years
It will take less if they're motivated to change the settings. Actually
changing settings in outlook (for example) takes less than a minute and only
need be done once.
#3: Spammers switching to plain ASCII will take days.
Would be nice.... would result in a HUGE reduction in spam volume and cost, in
just DAYS (your claim!). I don't see that as a negative. :-)
#4: It is easier and faster to have content filters do everything that MUAs
can, than forcing users to stop using HTML email.
They don't have to stop using it, if they're communicating with people they
have
a current agreement with. They could be 'grandfathered', perhaps. That's a
decision up to whoever implements the specific filter employed by a given ISP.
Base64 encoding, HTML
encoding, url encoded URLS, etc. can all be put into content filters.
Of course they can. The important thing is to decide how those are to be
weighted, who gets around the restrictions, and how early in the E-mail
distribution process the reduction in volume (and cost) takes place.
#5: There is no consent architecture in place for users to make such choices.
Nor does there NEED to be, on any global basis. Any ISP can choose to
implement
that any way they wish (and in fact, that's a PLUS, since the lack of a single
approach to that problem makes it harder for abusers to find a loophole
globally
and take advantage of that). It gives ISPs (otherwise mostly interchangeable)
the opportunity to differentiate at a very low cost their product/service
offerings from rivals in a meaningful way, and which will make a big difference
to their customers (current, and potential).
#6: We are ignoring the problem. Blocking HTML,base64,attachements, etc.
still does not fix the fundamental problem of SMTP able to accept email
from forged senders.
Most of that problem is greatly reduced if the spammer can't guess WHICH sender
they need to forge in order to get their spam delivered to a given destination.
Another example would be challenge response for spam blocking. One of the
problem with challenge/response is the burden is puts on the sender to have
to reply to every email. That's why Eric Dean is working on a CRI protocol
that can do the verification automatically.
Many publishers of free newsletters and mailing lists have made it ABUNDANTLY
clear that they're not willing to answer all those "challenge/response"
E-mails.
That idea, I think, is totally DOA.
Again, I think that a recipients resources... their (maybe dialup!) bandwidth,
their limited-size Inbox, etc etc... ought to be under THEIR control. They
ought to be able to choose who they allow to use it, or to stuff what into it.
And ideally, to cut the cost that the RECIPIENT must bear as much as possible,
the filtering ought to be done as soon as possible after the spam or other
undesired content reaches the destination domain.
Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg