-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message
<cone(_dot_)1577399765(_dot_)595152(_dot_)130899(_dot_)1004(_at_)monster(_dot_)email-scan(_dot_)com>,
Sam Varshavchik <mrsam(_at_)courier-mta(_dot_)com> writes
The only technical solution that I think has a chance of eventually getting
rid of spam is the one that conclusively proves or disproves whether the
mail sender is known to the /individual addressee/. Spam, by definition,
comes from an unknown source, and it will not be able to prove that it's a
known source.
that's your definition ... the people who write the various statutes
have another one ...
.... BUT the big mailbox providers (the ones who receive billions of
emails a day and use machine learning for their filtering) have a
completely different definition:
the ML systems need some notion of what is or is not spam and for that
they use recipient behaviour. If they deliver email to the inbox and the
recipient "marks it spam" then the ML systems "learn" that similar email
is spam, If they deliver email to the spam folder and the user
"recovers" it to the inbox then again the ML system learns of its error
the result is that for these large systems spam is "email that users do
not currently want in their inbox today"
since real people mark their utility bills as spam (remarkably often!)
and many dislike the offers that they once signed up to receive from
their favourite airline (whilst others are super keen to receive that
email) there are complex additional systems, adjunct to the ML, to
handle transactional email and to deal with mail about which there is no
consensus as to how spammy it might be ...
That means it can be filtered out, at that point. That's the
root of the problem: spam, by definition, comes from a completely unknown
source to the sender. Focus the technical solution on /that/.
if you decide to focus on that then you will deal with a chunk of the
problem but not I think the chunk that anyone really has much problem
with -- and in doing so you will disrupt a great many edge cases where
email from apparent strangers is in fact of considerable value to the
recipient.
Having a
reputation provider vouch for the reputation of the sender does nothing to
address the fundamental nature of what spam is.
I'd agree with the generality expressed here -- but the reputation
providers are of significant use today, particularly to sites that only
see small amounts of email (less than 10m items or so per day) ...
.... and since it is clearly unwise to expect a technical fix to address
a social problem (that's my generality for the mix!) the social nature
of their approach is at least heading in the right sort of direction
- --
richard Richard Clayton
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBXgVGSju8z1Kouez7EQIvLACg+nyUXNKpUKeg803oBcpQ7fS4RX4AoNGs
DX0PfGr5XecySF473s1txylI
=O0uX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp