Dave Aronson, 你好!
This new tech is compatible with the other anti-spam techniques(Such as
filterings)
Do you notice the structure of mail-location in the new-tech?
Such as:
X-MPTR:svr=192.168.95.100;port=9110;id=20040707230823.GA29023;
md=1732457bac7b4d141732457bac7b4d14;size=2573;spam=20%
The last parameter is \"spam\".It means the posibility of \"this email is a
junk-mail\" is 20%.
Where the value is from?
It\'s because the new-tech work together with filterings on the sender smtp
server.
No like traditional server,the receiver server filter the mail after getting it.
The new tech wish the step of sending email-pointer shows the posibility of a
spam.
So the receiver judge the spam not only by human attention.
(The receiver can configure the value to let system filter ones above this
value automatically)
About the development of the new-tech.
First phase,Some huge ESPs turn to use the new-tech,cause them to avoid to
receive spam each other
Second phase,to stop the new-tech be compatible with the traditional tech.
(Becasue most of spammers are use their own pc to make spam,and the new-tech
won\'t allow people use pc to be a smtp server,as I wrote the new-tech will
share an authority IPs database on Internet)
----你于 2004/10/23 23:29:41 的来信中写到:----
\"test\" <test(_at_)fjau(_dot_)edu(_dot_)cn> wrote:
> Notes:If server dones\'t supports new tech,just do it as traditional
> server.
In other words, the old way must still be supported. Therefore, the flow
of spam can (and therefore will) continue unabated, so long as the
spammers use the old way.
Furthermore, even if adopted by spammers, your way will only save a bit
of computer communication bandwidth. However, that capacity keeps
growing by leaps and bounds every year, and has become dirt-cheap, at
least in bulk or compared to years past. The real cost of spam is the
*human attention* bandwidth! That capacity grows at negligible speed.
If your \"technology\" relies on human judgement, especially from the end
recipient, to say what is spam or not, then it is doing absolutely
nothing to save human attention bandwidth.
What is needed is some way that will stop spam even if neither the
spammers nor most legitimate senders adopt the new way, and before the
vast majority of the spam is ever seen by the recipient. It need not be
perfect; it need only reduce the flood to a trickle. However, it should
be as perfect as possible in NOT generating false POSITIVES, which can
be a kiss of death for a business.
So far, a combination of just being damn careful with your address (such
as using throwaways, and web-forms instead of mailto links), and
Bayesian filtering, looks to be the best bet IMHO. Being careful has
reduced my spam count from the hundreds per day I get on some old
addies, to the few a week I get on a few dozen current ones all put
together. (That even includes THIS one, which is on publicly-accessible
unaltered web archives.) And that\'s with *no* filtering at all....
--
David J. Aronson, Spamfighter since 1994
Work: http://destined.to/program
Play: http://listen.to/davearonson
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf