It is worth noting that the word spam was coined in response to a failure
that appeared in NNTP, a pull system long before the problem spread to
email.
NNTP does allow a news server to ignore mail originating from known
spam/objectionable sources
it is the CHOICE of news server administrator to accept or deny from a
source
many news servers refuse to accept certain newsgroups
this is an example of a *pull* system functioning perfectly
and a good example of why pull should be a serious contender for use in
e-mail
Specifically it was Dick Depew's ARMM robot...
The issue is not how the bits are shipped. Every email communication is by
its nature initiated by the sender. It is the ability to initiate without
any form of authorization that creates the spam problem. In effect the
sender can consume unbounded respources. I don't see how tweaking the
details of the protocol affects this.
you miss the point
if the recipient refuses the email it does not even get onto the transport
system
just a small portion of it
In the end this is about giving choice to the recipient!
The key issue is communicating the consent to receive. I have previously
made a proposal on this topic - I will repost in RFC format later, that
allows this information to be communicated using the SMTP protocol.
The problem with consent to receive is that it is available only in a very
limited number of circumstances.
Phill
how does one police a "consent to receive"?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg