ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposal to define a simple architecture to differentiate legitimate bulk email from Spam (UBE)

2003-09-06 21:41:08


--On Saturday, September 06, 2003 8:22 PM +0800 Shelby Moore <coolpage(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:

Request for opinions on whether to creating a working group or publish
the following idea as an internet draft?

Spam is big problem that is getting worse.  BrightMail.com (which claims
to process 10% of world's email) claims that the percentage of spam out
of all email has grown from 16% in Jan. 2002 to 50% in Aug. 2003.

A fundamental unsolved problem of doing any thing about spam, is there is
currently no unambiguous definition of spam as an enforceable internet
standard.  This has been architectually impossible to define because the
receiver is the subjective determinant of which bulk email is solicited
and which is spam (UBE).
...

Shelby,

Valdis has identified some of the technical issues associated with using POP3 in this way. Let me step back and look at your proposal from another angle.

From the standpoint of the bulk mailer/ poster of material, there is no
advantage (and some disadvantages) of doing that posting so that interested users can "pull" it relative to just posting the material on a web page somewhere. Functionally, what you have proposed seems, to me, to be roughly equivalent to:

        * distributors of bulk materials are required to post them on
        selected web sites.
        
        * non-bulk materials may continue to go out via         conventional 
email.

Nice plan. The problem is that spammers won't play and efforts to coerce them into playing will largely fail due to international issues, lack of adequate incentives, etc.... exactly the same problem we have today with state laws prohibiting spam.

More generally, you have just defined an "opt in" model that assumes that anyone who has not explicited opted to receive particular messages will be able to get them (or be sent them) only be some overt action on the would-be recipient's part. We know from experience that such a model won't work without significant legal pressure and enforcement -- if you don't believe me, sample any reasonable quantity of spam for messages that claim, quite strongly, that, if you hadn't opted in, you wouldn't be receiving it.

Sorry, but no cigar.

    john