On Friday 04 August 2006 05:06, jdow took the opportunity to say:
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they
From: Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For that matter, how in censored would an IMAP MUA handle BCC?
{^_-}
In much the same way as when you send mail with sendmail -t, I suppose.
The MUA adds a Bcc field and the IMAP server removes it.
That means the IMAP server must communicate with two
On Fri, August 4, 2006 05:06, jdow wrote:
For that matter, how in censored would an IMAP MUA handle BCC?
the exact same way as squirrelmaill :-)
--
Benny
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
What I don't understand is
On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped sending
John Rudd wrote:
I've been re-thinking Marc's IMAP for sending, instead of SMTP
proposal. And this block Bcc part got me thinking even more.
I think he may be on to something. But lets take it one step further.
Email via fingerd. That'll throw off the spammers.
Wouldn't identd be more
jdow wrote:
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity
to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep
SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send
Hi Mark,
sorry to put this on the list: your mailserver seems to be rejecting mails from
millions of
potential senders
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mailer after end of data:
host mx.junkemailfilter.com [69.50.231.5]: 550 REJECTED - honeypot -
194.25.134.19 is
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 23:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if a provider's smarthost
gets blacklisted, users will have a problem. This has happened before
Hundreds of times, to major ISPs. And blacklist sites are not too
cooperative in removing bogus blacklistings.
Since all mail from a
Why use 2
protocols when you can use one?
Oh I don't know. Maybe because the infrastructure for it is already in
place in the form of hundreds of thousands of existing mail servers that
already require authentication if the message being transmitted isn't
destined for a local user?
There
site. So I guess this means direct SMTP is
still possible, too bad IMHO..
Regards
Menno
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spamUnited-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5629162
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
-would-you-make-to-stop-spamUnited-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5629948
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
What I don't understand is how making them use the ISP server stops them
from
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:03 PM -0500 Logan Shaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What might really be nice is some sort of language that could
be used to write up a document to configure a mail client for a
given ISP and user. It could configure all necessary settings
and would work with any
-addressess.
Regards
Menno van Bennekom
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spamUnited-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5635088
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:25 PM -0700 jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I keep several gigabytes of email data around. With POP3 it is easy
to store locally. With IMAP it's a pain in the censored.
My boss logs in from several computers, including a laptop he takes
everywhere. I got
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:47 PM -0700 jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That slightly more than a year I spent as perhaps one of
the VERY first online stalking victims ever (1985-1987) was a hell
I'd rather not repeat.
Is this written up somewhere? I'd be interested in understanding the
--On Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:43 AM +0100 Graham Murray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ADSL is both always on and a 'fixed' (ie your phone line is physically
connected to a DSLAM port) so the ISPs must have sufficient IP addresses
for all their ADSL customers.
Not necessarily. A lot of
--On Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:47 AM -0700 MennovB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't want to make the zombies use the ISP's SMTP server, I want to stop
them from spamming.
Right now they can only connect directly to the Internet so if the ISP
blocks direct SMTP outgoing the zombies stop
cleanport for a while for that. It wasn't authenticated but firewalled, SMTP
was only opened up for certain IP-addresses of ours.
Regards
Menno
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spamUnited-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5636668
Sent from
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:55, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Because ?of ?that experience, I find myself
agreeing ?with ?the ?overall reaction of, in essence: Kill me now, if
his ?proposal ?is ?going ?to be disseminated by any entity who doesn't
From: MennovB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
The direct in that case is probably the fault of the underlying cable
provider more than Earthlink. Did the spam come through the Earthlink
servers or merely from an address that claimed to be Earthlink? By the
way, there is no such address as
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
What I don't understand is how making
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:47 PM -0700 jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That slightly more than a year I spent as perhaps one of
the VERY first online stalking victims ever (1985-1987) was a hell
I'd rather not repeat.
Is this written up
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:43 AM +0100 Graham Murray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ADSL is both always on and a 'fixed' (ie your phone line is physically
connected to a DSLAM port) so the ISPs must have sufficient IP addresses
for all their ADSL
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:24 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Direct deliver is not evil, and the current fad of blocking DHCP
assigned
IPs had not cut down on spam one little bit.
It actually blocks a ton of spam in my world.
@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 21:05
Subject: Re: What changes would you make to stop spam? - United Nations Paper
A little bit sorry for the top-post ... but .. Re: Kofi Annan's quote
from the post dated today at around 6:20 PM PST:
The problem has risen to a level requiring
On Wed, August 2, 2006 05:10, John Rudd wrote:
Having also said the same thing ... Doesn't part of Microsoft's
extension to IMAP (called MAPI, oh so original) also support sending
via IMAP?
courier-mta does it and friends
how it works is another problem :-)
--
Benny
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 08:21, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, August 2, 2006 05:10, John Rudd wrote:
Having also said the same thing ... Doesn't part of Microsoft's
extension to IMAP (called MAPI, oh so original) also support sending
via IMAP?
courier-mta does it and friends
how it
Op 2-aug-06, om 07:31 heeft Tom Ray het volgende geschreven:Totalitarian regimes will *love* that one. ISPs will hate it. Hate to break the news to you but many ISPs are already not allowing their users to connect via port 25 outside their networks. Comcast has done it, as have a few others
Tom Ray wrote:
Hate to break the news to you but many ISPs are already not allowing
their users to connect via port 25 outside their networks. Comcast has
done it, as have a few others already. I run into this a lot because
I'm also a hosting company and offer SMTP Auth but many customers
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Please don't pollute the IMAP and POP protocols this way.
POP3 XTND XMIT submission extensions already "polluted" POP3 many
years ago, supported by many thousands of servers (tho' not
necessarily enabled).
--Sandy
Does
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, August 2, 2006 05:10, John Rudd wrote:
Having also said the same thing ... Doesn't part of Microsoft's
extension to IMAP (called MAPI, oh so original) also support sending
via IMAP?
courier-mta does it and friends
how it works is another
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to send email. It created an authenticated
connection back to the server where the POP/IMAP server hands it off to
the SMTP
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:37:32 -0700, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to send email. It created an authenticated
connection
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:37:32 -0700, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to send
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:53:17 -0700, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:37:32 -0700, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 13:53, Marc Perkel wrote:
I think what you are doing is a step in the right direction. But imagine
if the users IMAP connection could be used to send mail back up the link
then you wouldn't need to do SMTP to the users at all. All you would
have to do is configure a
Marc Perkel wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:37:32 -0700, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to
A possibly better method is to block SMTP outbound from the ISP.
That's what we do here at the University of Richmond. Our firewall is
configued to block all outbound SMTP connections (except those of our
legitimate SMTP servers). This dramatically reduced the flow of spam
from our campus. We
Here's what I've written so far. Deadline is today. Still working on it.
http://wiki.ctyme.com/index.php/UN_Spam_Paper
Tom Ray wrote:
Hate to break the news to you but many ISPs are already not allowing
their users to connect via port 25 outside their networks.
... because of third-party spam complaints. The ISP I now work for
started to do this shortly after they bought the smaller ISP I started
working
Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also totally agree with this practice, if they are going to be on
the hook for something their users did then they need to keep a
watchful eye on their customers.
But the ISPs should not be 'on the hook' for something their users
did. What is needed is for
be mentioned, like
China and Korea that happily do the hosting for western spammers, and where
the ISPs do not act on abuse messages about zombies.
My few eurocents..
Regards
Menno van Bennekom
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spamUnited
From: David Cary Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Look for social and societal solutions. Spammers keep pace with every
technological method.
Our greatest failure is that we have not promulgated the notion that
purchasing goods and services from spammers is subsidizing criminals.
It
From: Evan Platt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Speaking of which, when they give a person the lethal injection, why
do they wipe the area with a alcohol swab?
To protect the needle?
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to add
that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very much
to control the Internet and implement a world tax and probably a tax on the
Internet as well.
They will do this all in the name of helping us...
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:43:41 -0400, Rosenbaum, Larry M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] opined:
From: David Cary Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Look for social and societal solutions. Spammers keep pace with
every technological method.
Our greatest failure is that we have not promulgated
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Tom Ray wrote:
have registered that does not have working (i.e. read-by-a-human)
postmaster@ and abuse@ aliases?
Being that I am a domain registrar (small but still) how will I
know if they have a working postmaster or abuse alias?
Easy. Send them an email and see if
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 17:49, John D. Hardin wrote:
Please don't pollute the IMAP and POP protocols this way. The problem
can be easily solved with no changes to existing tools if the ISP
blocks all outbound SMTP from their dynamic client ranges
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
MAPI. [is]..implemented over DCE/RPC (i.e. LAN-only).
Maybe a nit... but technically not LAN-only using ncacn_http.
Well... *intended* to be LAN-only...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
I think what you are doing is a step in the right direction. But imagine if
the users IMAP connection could be used to send mail back up the link then
you wouldn't need to do SMTP to the users at all. All you would have to do is
configure a way for the
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:24 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Direct deliver is not evil, and the current fad of blocking DHCP
assigned IPs had not cut down on spam one little bit.
It actually blocks a ton of spam in my world.
...which brings up something I
Does anyone use [XTND XMIT]?
These days, not really. But when Eudora was king and the feature was
usually enabled when supported on the MTA side, I would guess maybe 1%
of Eudora users knew of and used the feature. The point is more that
the extension's already been built, but never got a
On 8/2/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's what I've written so far. Deadline is today. Still working on it.
http://wiki.ctyme.com/index.php/UN_Spam_Paper
Rather than extend POP/IMAP to send mail, which quite frankly will
never happen (contact the author of the IMAP protocol, Mark
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:09 AM -0400 Rob McEwen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to
add that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very
much to control the Internet and implement a world tax and
--On Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:06 PM -0700 John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) Require Virus Scanning on all SMTP transactions
Compare to requiring standards-compliance throughout the process, and
particularly in message content. If you're allowed to discard all MIME
content that fails
: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 21:05
Subject: Re: What changes would you make to stop spam? - United Nations
Paper
A little bit sorry for the top-post ... but .. Re: Kofi Annan's quote
from the post dated today at around 6:20 PM PST:
The problem has risen to a level requiring that the United Nations
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:23 AM -0700 John D. Hardin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that a default level of filtering - SMTP and the Microsoft
protocols that were only intended for use on a LAN - should be in
place to deal with the default level of end-user administrative skill
- low
Rob McEwen wrote:
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to add
that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very much
to control the Internet and implement a world tax and probably a tax on the
Internet as well.
Just to keep things in
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:03 PM +0100 Graham Murray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I would solve the problem by going the other way. Get rid
of dynamic IP addresses
Interesting idea. It's my understanding that dynamic addresses are used due
to the IPv4 shortage, so if we can
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by extending POP/IMAP to send email.
What's your objection to
-address just as revenge :(
Regards
Menno
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spamUnited-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5618619
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP
as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by extending POP/IMAP to send email.
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:38 AM -0700 MennovB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Don't think that's needed, if ISP's only allow outgoing SMTP to the ISP's
SMTP servers and not directly then most (current) bots and most spam will
be dealt with. I wouldn't be surprised to see the amount of spam
wouldn't know the command.
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the zombies,
I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
Regards
Menno
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spamUnited-Nations-Paper
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by extending POP/IMAP
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 19:24, Kenneth Porter took the opportunity to say:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:03 PM +0100 Graham Murray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I would solve the problem by going the other way. Get rid
of dynamic IP addresses
Interesting idea. It's my
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to send email. It created an authenticated
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to send
Marc Perkel wrote:
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP password, which we have to assume is required.
But in most cases I think the spamware has
JamesDR wrote:
And this differs from SMTP AUTH in what way?
With SMTP AUTH te authentication for the outbound email isn't
necessarilly the same as the incoming email. If you use IMAP to send
email then the user has to know the IMAP password to send email. It also
doesn't require a separate
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP password, which we have to assume is
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be no SMTP
between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to server protocol.
That's all well and good saying SMTP is server to server
Marc Perkel wrote:
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
If the user doesn't store the password then they would type it in when
say Thunderbird first starts. At that point obly thunderbird, not the
virus program would have access to the IMAP port. If the
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
no SMTP between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to server
protocol.
That's all well and good saying
Marc Perkel wrote:
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
no SMTP between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to
server protocol.
That's all
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
If SMTP becomes a server to server protocol then it will wipe out
consumer virus infected spam zombies. It's not going to get rid of all
spam - just most of it.
It will wipe out the _existing_ spam zombies. Then the zombies will
adapt to using
Marc Perkel wrote:
With SMTP AUTH te authentication for the outbound email isn't
necessarilly the same as the incoming email. If you use IMAP to send
email then the user has to know the IMAP password to send email. It also
doesn't require a separate connection on a separate port. Why use 2
On 8/2/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
doesn't require a separate connection on a separate port. Why use 2
protocols when you can use one?
Indeed, why don't we just close all ports except 80 and layer
everything atop HTTP?
For heavens sake, Marc. This debate about using IMAP/POP
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:51, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
JamesDR wrote:
And this differs from SMTP AUTH in what way?
With SMTP AUTH te authentication for the outbound email isn't
necessarilly the same as the incoming email.
But that would be both stupid and unnecessary.
Marc Perkel wrote:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
Given 'em time. With sufficient motivation, the people who write the
zombie programs will go to the effort to check the default mailer's
config and extract the password. Or link
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:37:32 -0700, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by
From: John D. Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Tom Ray wrote:
have registered that does not have working (i.e. read-by-a-human)
postmaster@ and abuse@ aliases?
Being that I am a domain registrar (small but still) how will I
know if they have a working postmaster or abuse
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 22:26, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
no SMTP between clients and servers.
From: Logan Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
I think what you are doing is a step in the right direction. But imagine if
the users IMAP connection could be used to send mail back up the link then
you wouldn't need to do SMTP to the users at all. All you would have
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:09 AM -0400 Rob McEwen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to
add that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very
much to control the
From: Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:03 PM +0100 Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally I would solve the problem by going the other way. Get rid
of dynamic IP addresses
Interesting idea. It's my understanding that dynamic addresses are used
From: MennovB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
Reducing volume of spam *sent* probably requires fundamental redesign
of the protocols, or some other major change in the cost/benefit
analysis.
Don't think that's needed, if ISP's only allow
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP
as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by
From: JamesDR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail storage for ISP? Say 100MB. (ISP's don't allocate this my the
number of users, they know that they won't be storing that much mail for
that long.) Help desk calls because of over limit? Very few.
IMAP/IMAP SEND
Mail storage for ISP? Say 100MB. (ISP WILL
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP password, which we have
jdow wrote:
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity
to say:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP password,
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
no SMTP between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to server
protocol.
From: John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
If SMTP becomes a server to server protocol then it will wipe out
consumer virus infected spam zombies. It's not going to get rid of all
spam - just most of it.
It will wipe out the _existing_ spam zombies.
From: Ken A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's crazier than I thought you were. If you expect the average
user to go along with that you're not connected with reality very
well. Your idealism is getting in the way.
He's engaged in marc-eting ? sorry... but yeah. end this o.t. please...
Ken
This is
He's not advocating switching to an IMAP-only system ...
He's asking the U.N. to start ...funding projects that fight spam and provide
internet security and educational resources to the public. The rest of the
paper is background and suggestions taken from this thread (and a couple he
came
jdow wrote:
From: Ken A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's crazier than I thought you were. If you expect the average
user to go along with that you're not connected with reality very
well. Your idealism is getting in the way.
He's engaged in marc-eting ? sorry... but yeah. end this o.t. please...
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
