On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 11:09:43AM -0500, Dustin Trammell wrote:
| Meng Weng Wong wrote:
| > what we need is a worldwide vaccine so we can just stamp it out
| > entirely.
|
| The only way I can see that that is possible, is to completely replace
| SMTP with a mail transfer protocol that cannot be used to send spam.
| BIG Project.
Recently I've been thinking about what a Next Generation Email
Architecture might look like. This is useful to think about because
then we can see what SMTP+SPF has in common with those possible futures,
and where the differences lie.
I think we can agree that a final solution has to match the aesthetic of
the Internet itself: no proprietary/closed/commercial/centralized modes of
operation; no "we'll start by shutting everybody out" gated communities.
This is why I don't see a permanent future for antispam companies: their
niche will be squeezed by a paradigm shift. Certainly, spam will always
be around as long as naive or misconfigured MTAs are over-liberal in what
they accept; but I want the average user to stay out of reach.
Perhaps one day the only people who'll see spam are those who get their
machines compromised, and then the spam can just advertise directly to
them and not bother the rest of us.
Short of djb's IM2000, overhauls of SMTP tend to add more fields to the
envelope: cookies that can be confirmed, etc. While an SPF rollout does
imply MTAs have to be "patched", by "patch" we really mean "add a plugin".
Adding fields to the envelope requires changes to the very core of an
MTA's SMTP logic.
Right now the envelope sender field conflates two concepts: "where do i
want bounces to go" and "who really sent me this message". Add
.forwards to the mix and you get "did another version of me send the
message?"
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡