Jonathan, et. al.
In the case presented 'Burden'[1] is the technical consideration at issue. As
with any system or systems proposed this specific technical concern (an
'Ongoing effort' concern) should be evaluated after adoption, however I believe
what you are positing as an argument is a 'Balance of burdens' issue where the
sender would be at a greater burden perhaps making the solution untenable. Am
I missing something?
-e
[1] D. Crocker, J. Levine and V. Schryver, "Technical Considerations for Spam
Control
Mechanisms", work in progress, Internet-Draft
draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt, June 2003.
On Monday, October 27, 2003 3:38 PM, Jonathan A. Zdziarski
[SMTP:jonathan(_at_)nuclearelephant(_dot_)com] wrote:
8<...>8
You also need to take into consideration the 'usability' issue with
regards to access lists. If you are using a reply-based list (where you
have to reply to get added to their access list), there are many
individuals (including myself) who _will not_ converse with someone
using this approach for many reasons including both resources and
philosophy. If you want to catch 100% of spams, disconnect your mail
server from the public Internet - but you'll find it's not quite as
usable.
So there's a balance...I'm not saying access controls are useless...but
they certainly are no single solution.
8<...>8
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg