"Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com> wrote:
I don't see why you would want to to confuse the issue with RSS, HTTP, IRC,
etc?
I explained the reasons.
The problem is the SMTP specification.
I explained why I thought it wasn't.
You can have a very well-defined, and completely insecure protocol.
My point was that the problem isn't the SMTP specification
(i.e. technical issues). It's the fundamentaly design of SMTP
(i.e. social goals for the system.)
To drastically reduce the spammer problem,
A) Deal with access issues
B) Deal with technical comformity issues
thats it!!
Nonsense.
Just imagine that you were writing a new "SMTP" protocol and you were going
to expose it specs to the world. You have NO idea whats out there. All
you can define the interface points in the specification. That is all you
can do.
And if you don't understand why spam isn't a problem in other
protocols, any new messaging protocol you design may still suffer from
the same fundamental flaws as SMTP. So you've just changed protocols
for *nothing*.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg