Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote:
So, I'd conclude:
Filters -> No dependence on anonymity (presence or lack of)
That doesn't seem to support any form of statment about filter writers
expectations for the future of email - only about their choice to design
tools which are independent of that future.
Real Paul's explanation of "the emails of the future". It is based
around content, not your incorrect belief that an authenticated method
of mail exchange will affect spam in any way.
"Email + authentication = no spam" has been a common approach by many.
Dave Crocker, Vernon Schryver and many others have pointed out that this
particular equation does not compute just like SMTP-AUTH did not kill spam.
However, that does not mean that filters is the only way to go. As per
the ASRG charter, recasting everything as "consent-based communications"
and providing protocols to unify various anti-spam tools including
filters may be something that we want to concentrate on instead.
It's very easy to sit here and criticize filters for ignoring things
that we think are important, but I would rather focus my attention on
the individuals who are actually coding these spam filters as they [we]
are far more familiar with what works and what doesn't, what will work
and what will not, and why the things that you think are important may
not actually be...rather than sitting and talking about theory, lets
take a look at the people who are actually accomplishing something at
fighting spam on the front-lines. In other words, it is the filters
that are already succeeding that validate your requirements doc....it's
not your requirements doc that validates the spam tools.
Going off-tangent for a second - is there anything for filter developers
that the ASRG or IRTF/IETF can do in terms of perhaps helping to develop
a common standard of some sort?
Asrg mailing list