On 10/06/02, J.D. Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/05/02, Dan Birchall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:But I don't think the "postage" model has to be quite as complex as that. Implementing it at the MX-to-MX step should be sufficient. Receiving MX asks for "postage" and the sending MX better have some ready.While that is indeed the most logical way to apply a postage model to SMTP, we already know that spammers don't play by the rules...for example, they'd get an Earthlink dialup account to spam Earthlink's customers, and so forth.
At which point we win, for a few reasons:
1. It makes things harder/more expensive for the spammers. Spammers don't like hard, expensive things. 2. It makes things easier for ISPs. Catching spam between your own users is pretty fish, barrel, smoking gun, yes? 3. It creates an AGIS scenario, where ISPs that are lax on spam wind up with customer bases of spammers spamming one another, and those that aren't wind up with customer bases of non-spammers.
The implementation issues are definitely more vexing.Given that and as-yet-unaddressed issues of implementation, postage could only be a second or third stage solution.
And as I probably already said, I don't view postage
as a total solution.
-Dan
_______________________________________________
spamcon-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers
Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body
of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
