Re: namedroppers, continued
2002-12-09 18:03:42
Stephen,
Monday, December 9, 2002, 9:52:26 AM, you wrote:
Stephen> The devil is in determining what senders are authorized once we've
Stephen> authenticated them.
The concept of being "authorized" to send someone mail has good logic, but
goes against established human communication practises for mail and
telephone. (Filtering is common to both, but is different from
"authorization".)
Some time ago, Mike O'Dell put forward the idea of "accountable", in the
sense of being able to reach back to the sender, to hold them accountable
for their actions.
The general idea behind pursuing simple authentication presumes that the
really nasty spammers would not want to be identified. It's not clear how
valid this presumption really would be.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: namedroppers, continued, (continued)
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Stephen Sprunk
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Vernon Schryver
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Stephen Sprunk
- Re: namedroppers, continued, John C Klensin
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Edward Lewis
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Matt Crawford
- Re: namedroppers, continued, Ofer Inbar
- Re: namedroppers, continued,
Dave Crocker <=
Re: namedroppers, continued, Paul Vixie
RE: namedroppers, continued, Dean Anderson
Re: namedroppers, continued, Steven M. Bellovin
RE: namedroppers, continued, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
RE: namedroppers, continued, Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)
|
|
|