[Asrg] Nothing will stop spam???

gep2@terabites.com wrote:
> 
> Indeed, and I propose a hypothesis that *nothing* (practical, anyhow) will 
> prevent all possible spam from being sent.  

What will prevent spam from being sent? The undeniable knowledge that it
will not ever be received and seen.

(snip)

> 
> 
>>To completely kill all spam will require a long term solutions. 
> 
> 
> I think it would take more than that... I think it would take a MIRACLE, or a 
> change in the basic physical laws of the universe.
> 

What will kill spam?

A total, comprehensive, complete, and absolute consent framework
will kill spam.

Under a consent framework, I instruct my incoming MTA not to accept
email from anyone who cannot prove (through some defined method) that
they have my consent to send me email.

If you send me an email and you can't prove to my MTA that you have
my consent, my MTA will not accept your email. It will disgard it or
bounce it -- my choice. If you want my consent, you can ask for it.
I may give consent, I may not respond.

When a consent framework is in place on MTAs, MUAs, Web based MUAs,
list servers, and wherever else it needs to be, people will use it.
It must be made user friendly.

They will hear about it on the media and from their tech friends and
they will want to know how they can use it. They will install the
latest upgrade of Outlook express on their "Windows computer" -- or
they will have their tech friends help them.

That will kill spam.

Unfortunately, some of the motivation to kill spam is lost to
much of the user community. The reason? Spam filters at the major
ISPs. If people were still receiving all of that unfiltered spam,
they would be much more motivated to use a consent based system.
In fact, they would be motivated to use white lists. I use a very
large white list in Exim to rescue false negatives from Spam Assassin. 
It doesn't cut down on internet traffic and I don't like it, but
I use it because I dislike spam more.

Once a consent framework is in place, filters should be turned
off to raise the email users' spam agitation level and motivate
the apathetic to use the consent framework.

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>
>> From: "Olson, Margaret" <molson@roving.com>
>> To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" <research@solidmatrix.com>
>> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within
>> con
>>
(snip)
>>
>> (Contrary to popular belief, I have no problem with requiring consent
>> to send mail.)
>>
>> Margaret.
>>

There, that's one person. There must be millions more.

We can discuss server authentication, sender accountability,
SMTP extensions, SMTP replacement, GIEIS, SPF, C/R, Reverse DNS,
HTML mail blocking, greylisting, etc. forever. We need to
simply require proof of consent. In the final analysis, I submit
that with the right technology there will come the time that:

When no one will accept spam, no one will send spam.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg