On 2007-06-07 12:15:11 -0400, Guy Hulbert wrote: > As I see it there is essentially one problem, Spam. The underlying > cause is an economic one: the costs of sending are much smaller than the > cost of receiving. The only long-term solution is to change the > underlying mechanism from push to pull, which will require a cultural > change in the end-users of the system. > > So IM2000 is a better idea
I don't see how IM2000 would change anything. It doesn't increase cost
for the sender (it may even decrease it, but that doesn't matter as
spammers use stolen resources anyway), it doesn't make shutting down the
senders easier (they are still spread over zombie networks of thousands
of machines) and it doesn't make detecting spam easier. About the only
problem this could cause for spammers is that the message store isn't
actually online when the recipient wants to read the spam. Depending on
how the message store is identified there may be ways around that or the
spammer may not care.
> The ideas in IM2000 can be implemented without changing the protocols
> but not without changing culture. In order to effect useful cultural
> change, the impact on everyone (both users and implementers) must be
> minimal.
>
> It would be possible to use SMTP as a notification mechanism by
> stripping the message body on send and replacing it with a URL.
message/external-body has been part of MIME since the very first version
(RFC 1341 in 1992). So, yes, IM2000 could be implemented entirely with
existing protocols (SMTP + message/external-body for notification, HTTP
or IMAP for communication with the message store). All you need to do is
change lots of client software and get people to actually use it.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
