At 21/10/2003 11:43 Tuesday, you wrote:
Hello everyone!
I have a lot to say and I hope it's worth hearing....
Welcome and go ahead :)
some things I belive at this time are:
1) make the sender "Pay Postage" will get us further than trying to
filter the junk / spam.
2) the SMTP email system needs to get modified to make forgery of headers
very difficult.
3) common practice, the law and the SMTP software need to make
"accountability" a requirement not an option.
4) as has been stated elsewhere: classifing "SPAM" via program is
difficult and requires constant adaptation.
5) the problem is as much , perhaps mostly an issue of total traffic
volume and the burden it puts on the whole community.
6) the traffic and related handling of it costs us real money.
7) today the recipent bears the cost of the unwanted traffic.
does anyone belive that the 7 points are wrong?
Personally I dont agree with 1, 5 and 7.
1) that changes the whole concept of internet mail.
5) mail traffic may be heavy but that is not really the concern of most
network operators given the current traffic produced by P2P and "multi-media"
7) that actually makes up only a very small part of the cost, when you
define recipient as "end-user" instead of "the organization to which the
recipient belongs"
1) it would motivate each mail system operator to care about the volume of
traffic they generate.
2) it would shift the burden of generating high outbound traffic back to
the orginating party.
3) it woulf give the "victims" funds to pay for the exess unwanted traffic.
4) it would shift the legal stance on dealing with the problem as follows:
it is difficult to create a solid legal definition of "SPAM" and due to
the inherent subjective nature of any definition leaves room for argument.
also if we try to "Block SPAM" or "Outlaw SPAM" then they can claim unfair
restraint , bias , censorship and so on. if we move to a business
accounting basis then there can be no argument that the process is unfair.
you have to "Pay your bills" if you want to use the network. and if you do
not pay your bills then you can't keep ending me traffic. and thats not a
"Blacklist" it's not "Censorship" and so on.... it's basic legal business
practice.
How does your approach deal with hijacked computers and the like? Make the
computer owner pay? (Probably not even a bad idea, people would start to
care what is running on their computers.)
Cheers
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg