On 8/13/02, Ted Gavin wrote:
Just as there isn't only 'one problem', there isn't going
to be 'one solution'. The problem is multifaceted, and
much of it is subjective depending upon one's position in
the e-mail space.
Agreed.
On 8/13/02, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Caitlin Bestler <caitlinb(_at_)rp(_dot_)asomi(_dot_)net> writes:
My initial minimalist approach is to propose a standard
whereby the source of an email can be authenticated,
allowing receivers and relayers the option of rejecting
or simply segregating email without authenticated
sources.
Thus leading to masses of authenticated spam? Anyone can
generate an RSA key. There are enough primes out there
that you can generate one for each piece of spam and still
never run out. :)
I didn't propose an authentication method. Any that is based
upon one-way communication will either not work, or require
a central registry. Neither is desirable. An optional
reverse connection is probably a required part of any
solution.
Attempts to *classify* mail as "unsolicited" will only
result in years of debate as to which groups are
entitled to exemptions -- witness the debates on
telemarketing rules.
And yet the laws on junk faxing have, largely, stopped
junk faxes. One of the nice things about laws is that,
being interpreted by human beings, they need not be
perfect, just good enough that the intent is obvious.
Precisely because phone calls *can* be traced. Without
tracebility there can be no accountability.