Verizon isn't restricting users unreasonably. Verizon is requiring authentication for to relay outgoing mail, which most people would consider a fairly reasonable thing to do.
I do think IM2000 is interesting, but that replacing the current email system with it or something else is actually a much bigger problem than the technical design of such a system. These sort of internet conversations often wind up with somebody pasting the cynical form describing why so and so's proposal for fighting spam or change to our email architecture will fail. It has an uncanny truth to it. -Heath > You mean you must still route your mail through their servers? Then > no, that's not what I'm advocating. Restricting senders at the ISP > level is not a solution, it is the problem. Please correct me if I > don't understand what you're referring to in relation to port 587. > > The primary problem with SMTP is that it is designed to accept mail > from anonymous users (a requirement) *and* it places the chief > resource usage on the receiver. Receiving servers need to store the > mail. > > One approach to turning the tables on this game is to make senders > store mail until receivers choose to accept it: > > http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html > > This of course would make many of the current methods used by spammers > more difficult (infected PCs) and would give RBLs a head start on > spam. > > I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is a good start at a > conversation on fixing mail. > > tim > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
