"ipeter(_at_)bigpond(_dot_)net(_dot_)au"
<ipeter(_at_)bigpond(_dot_)net(_dot_)au> wrote:
Sometimes the sender intends to engage in a dialogue with the
recipients, or request information from them. In such cases the
sender has an intent to receive a reply. In other cases, the sender
merely wishes to disseminate information.
Which is (IMHO) the vast majority of spam. Very little spam is
intended to establish an ongoing SMTP conversation. The vast majority
is intended to distribute information through SMTP, about URL's, 1-800
numbers, or other non-SMTP response mechanisms.
That, alone, says that the vast majority of spam is abusive of SMTP,
as SMTP is not a one-way message delivery protocol.
If we wanted to have a one-way message delivery protocol, it would
look very different from SMTP. Therefore, changing SMTP to make it
less useful for high-volume one-way "messaging" is probably not a bad
thing.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg