Barry Shein wrote:
Although not unspeakable it has that "little" glitch in the idea that
someone has to decide what is spam and what is not.
I agree that this should be addressed, and in fact tried to do so in the
design of SICS; some details are in the existing version and some will
be included in the next version.
Essentially, the party detecting the mis-labeled message (our variant of
spam) demands compensation from the signer of the label (typically the
sender or his MTA), either directly (if they have agreement) or via a
`guaranteed payments CA` (combination of CA and Payment Service Provider).
This is handled efficiently with the approach of `optimistic` protocols,
i.e. we first ask the sender to confirm if it is mislabeled or not. If
he admits (e.g. due to zombie), he pays fine x$. If he disagrees, this
is a `dispute` and the MTA (or the guaranteed payments CA) will evaluate
this. Yes, this costs extra money... to be added to the fine, i.e. you
now pay x$+y$ (or if it is determined this was not a justified
complaint, the complaining party pays y$).
..skip
(I know "did you read what I WROTE?!", YES I DID, ok?! It still comes
No need to be aggressive/defensive... While I do try to write as clearly
and completely as I can, and appreciate it when people read it and help
improve, I am well aware that people don't have enough time to read
throughly every proposal, so I am not complaining (usually...).
Best, Amir
down to someone, somewhere having to decide what is spam and making
someone else agree to that judgement, unless one is a govt-mandated
monopoly this tends to be a bad business model.)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg