Rather than a "spam-blocking" program labelling something as spam
and blocking it, we should have an "unwanted-email-blocking
program". When the spammer's lawyer screams "It's not spam, it's
ooga-booga. Stop blocking my client's emails with your
'spam-blocking' program", we should respond that it's really an
'unwanted-email-blocking-program'. And that our customer has
indicated that he doesn't want your email.
That doesn't work: the spammer will get a shill to sign up with your
ISP and claim he _wants_ the spam.
That's ONLY a problem if the decision is made by the ISP and applies to all
recipients.
Once the recipient has the control, then THEY can set the filter as close or as
open as they want, based on which of their recipients they trust and expect to
send them what (type and content of mail).
One could even envision, for example, a scheme whereby an E-mail from a given
whitelisted sender would only be trusted IF it contained one of a small set of
internal "keys" in it, specific to that sender, perhaps in the header or even
in
the mail body: the sender's habitual signature file, what E-mail program they
use, their IP address in the header (for users with fixed IP addresses) or some
such.
In any case, the result of doing this RIGHT is that the shill signing up for
the
ISP will accomplish absolutely NOTHING, since THEY are the only ones who will
receive the spammer's crap...! The shill's permissions and demands won't
affect
ANY other recipient.
Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support free and fair US elections! http://stickers.defend-democracy.org
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg