Your scheme would keep the email out of the mailbox and out of the client --
I like it. But it still generates traffic to my network.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Shore [mailto:ietf(_at_)soaring(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk]
Sent: May 26, 2003 4:33 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: spam
J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
The *only* thing that's going to stop spam is charging for email.
Everything else is a waste of time, because you're going to run into
impossible arguments trying to define what's spam, and what's
legitimate bulk email (q.v. the recent message about IETF-Announce
email).
That's an interesting argument. I suspect I've missed a
lot of the
prior discussion, since I'm not sure how charging for email
would work
(Who charges? Who pays? Could it ever work in a free market? Aren't
there legal implications?).
It was your "only" that caught my attention, though.
Being able to
pick and choose my email addresses, I have had a reasonable amount of
success using different email addresses for different stores and
subscriptions: if an address begins to collect an
unreasonable amount of
spam, I stop using it. One "technical" solution that would discourage
spam would be to add a key (a text string, for example) to the email
header. The user gives out their email address with different keys to
different groups of people; if a key attracts spam, all they
have to do
is stop accepting mail with that key. It would also make
organising mail
very easy. On the negative side, the extra complexity might prove
challenging for some...
Andrew.
--
Andrew Shore.
Looking to offer a managed WLAN Service? Download our market report, completed
by Telechoice Market Analyst group, to learn more. <a
href="http://www.bridgewatersystems.com/learnmore";>http://www.bridgewatersystems.com/learnmore</a>