Sorry bubbie, send me a challenge and you go into the evil list, which
tends to be a permanent /dev/null redirect. This is iron clad on a
mailing list. Direct I may or may not consign. C/R is plain evil as I
have encountered it in the past. On mailing lists it's beyond evil as
it generates
On Mit, 2010-12-01 at 16:17 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:02:03 -0500
Michael Grant mgr...@grant.org wrote:
The main problem with this approach is how does
someone send you mail if they're not on your contact list? I don't
have any magic answers how to solve that
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:44:37 +0100
Bernd Petrovitsch be...@petrovitsch.priv.at wrote:
C/R is only means to make it move your own effort over to others.
The really interesting case is if both sides choose to require C/R
to get the first mail delivered.
Which should be a clear sign to
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 16:08:36 +
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:44:37 +0100
Bernd Petrovitsch be...@petrovitsch.priv.at wrote:
C/R is only means to make it move your own effort over to others.
The really interesting case is if both sides choose to
- Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems
is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is that mail
servers talk to each other using
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is that mail
servers talk to each other using the same protocol as users use to talk
to servers.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:27:13 -0800
Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate
spam or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the
problems is the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is
that mail servers talk
On 12/1/10 10:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
And authentication will stop spam... how?
Thoughts?
You're wasting your time.
Regards,
David.
Ditto. we can't even get big providers (Microsoft/blackberry) or ISP's
to adhere to current RFC's.
If you enforce ALL the RFC's in a pre-queue filter,
Hi,
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 10:50:49 -0500, Michael Scheidell
michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
On 12/1/10 10:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
And authentication will stop spam... how?
Thoughts?
You're wasting your time.
Ditto. we can't even get big providers (Microsoft/blackberry) or
On 12/1/10 10:56 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Ok, now let's be serious, there*must* be a reason why this didn't
happen long ago, right?
Kind regards,
--Toni++
Because the internet 'must be free'. as in accessable, not as in free beer.
Because like I said, all the BIG guys decided not to follow
On 12/1/10 10:56 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
I think that it's almost easy to fix the spam
problem if we are prepared to abandon the SMTP protocol.
Actually, published research seems to indicate spam isn't all that much
of a problem anymore.
Yes, 95% of all email is spam, but currently
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is that mail
servers talk to each other
On 2010-12-01 17:13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that
Hi,
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 11:02:54 -0500, Michael Scheidell
michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
On 12/1/10 10:56 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Ok, now let's be serious, there*must* be a reason why this didn't
happen long ago, right?
Because the internet 'must be free'. as in accessable, not as
Hi,
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +, Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org
wrote:
I don't think that would help at all. Bots would just pretend to be mail
servers and use SMTP. Any other form of spam could be circumvented by
setting up spammer-owned MTAs that spammers would use to inject
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it
was universally enforced.
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#e-postage
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#senior-IETF-member
+1 to moving this
-Original Message-
From: Martin Gregorie [mailto:mar...@gregorie.org]
Sent: 01 December 2010 16:13
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Do we need a new SMTP protocol? (OT)
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 17:29 +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +, Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org
wrote:
.
IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it
was universally enforced. A small charge, e.g. $0.001 to $0.01 per
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:55:17 +
Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
Besides, I seem to remember hearing that IPV6 is never anonymous
Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
OT comment 1: if IPV6 is indeed never anonymous,
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. [...]
The FUSSP! Hooray!
I'm not sure what the specification of the new protocol should be [...]
Oh, no, it is not.
On 12/01/2010 02:13 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 07:27 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate spam
or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the problems is
the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with
On 12/1/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat ESPs) would potentially send out
each spam
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:47:16 -0500
Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat ESPs) would potentially send out
each spam from a different IP and then not use each IP again for
YEARS!
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +, Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org
wrote:
IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it
was universally enforced. A small charge, e.g. $0.001 to $0.01 per
addressee per message would be
On 12/1/2010 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
I don't see any nightmare.
When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the largest
data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes... and then
trying to transfer that via rsync... and getting all the mirrors to
handle loading
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:29:28 -0500
Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the
largest data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes...
and then trying to transfer that via rsync... and getting all the
mirrors to handle
Marc,
This is like solving the Suzuki Samauri rollover problem by making
a newer, wider standard for road widths so that the automakers can make
wider cars.
After all the current road width standard is set the way it is because
of Roman chariots which specified that the road needed to be
On 2010/12/01 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Actually, since the smallest allocation unit is a /64, you could switch
IP addresses once per nanosecond and not run out for almost 585 years.
If you have a /48, you could last for about 38 million years.
So at a minimium, an IPv6 DNSBL will have
I do find this topic interesting, perhaps this isn't the most
appropriate place to discuss it, if not here though, where?
I'd like to make an observation. More and more people are using
social network systems like Facebook in place of email. Also IM
chatting is replacing a lot of
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:02:03 -0500
Michael Grant mgr...@grant.org wrote:
The main problem with this approach is how does
someone send you mail if they're not on your contact list? I don't
have any magic answers how to solve that beyond what's already out
there as in return messages with
On 12/1/2010 10:29 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 12/1/2010 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
I don't see any nightmare.
When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the largest
data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes... and then
trying to transfer that via rsync...
On 12/1/2010 11:47 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 12/1/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat
32 matches
Mail list logo
