I like Chris idea about class system and his argument that spam cannot be
defined. However that argument should not be stretched to far. Most of us do
throw away the same kind of mails.
I think blacklists and classifications could go hand in hand. Mail clients
could be connected to blacklist servers and be part in a voting system. When
I delete a mail I will have two buttons [Delete] and [Delete spam] and the
later takes part in the voting system.
Of course the mail client is equipped with a classification system allowing
me to automatically delete any notifications I do not want. Chris suggestion
looks difficult for an average user but I would implement it as check boxes
in a mail client making it very easy to use:
[ ] "allow all messages from unknown" [...]
[ ] "allow class::UCE" [<-]
[ ] "allow class UCE hardware" [<-]
[x] "allow class UCE hardware electrical tools" [...]
[ ] "allow class UCE hardware mechanical tools" [...]
[x] "allow class::personal" [...]
Since I am interested in electrical tools I will not press the [Delete spam]
button when such a notification arrives, but if a spammer sends a
notification about mechanical tools I will vote by pressing the [Delete
spam] button and a community of angry recipients could blacklist the
company. I guess that in such a world it is better to be honest and classify
yourself. It would be a sign of you being an earnest merchant.
If I have sent a mail to a company the mail client should allow a
notification from that company. In that notification the company could
include its classifications and the mail client could ask me if I want to
allow notifications with such contents.
As a teacher at a university I think my colleagues could form a voting
group. Several similar voting groups could be connected in a network. I
would then probably subscribe to a blacklist and a white list made by the
Swedish University Network. I have received spam about sewing machines in
Florida and they are spam however interested I am in sewing machines in
Sweden. That is why a classification system is not sufficient.
/DK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <asrg(_at_)rebel(_dot_)com(_dot_)au>
To: "Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com>; "Dag Kihlman"
<dag(_dot_)kihlman(_at_)htu(_dot_)se>
Cc: "ASRG" <asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:20 AM
Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)
What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull
systems?
Have I missed something?
yes you have
pull forces the id of the remote server *without* rewriting the entire
mail
transport system
it can be implemented gradually
i.e. mail from non pull servers are given a grace period (1-2yrs?)
after that point all non pull mail is returned with an error message
most important....
PULL DOES NOT DECIDE WHAT IS OR WHAT ISN'T SPAM.
only the receiver is in the position to do that.
thats why I recommend a "class" system be instantiated at the same time
(as
pull or whatever ID system)
so the user can set rules something like
"deny all messages from unknown"
"deny class::UCE"
"accept class::UCE::hardware::electrical_tools"
"accept class::personal"
(examples only)
this is my legal + technical argument
both must co-exist to get a spam *reduction* system working
there will never be a spam prevention system
because spam cannot be defined!
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Jon
Kyme
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:46 PM
To: Dag Kihlman
Cc: ASRG
Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)
What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull
systems?
Have I missed something?
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg