On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:02:30 +0800, Shelby Moore said: > POPing once (one list mailing) versus processing one email with zillion RCPT > TOs (one list mailing) is not a very big cost difference. One might be > slightly less than the other and we really can't say which one, but it is > irrelevant because the difference is insignificant.
When you compare a successful SMTP to a successful POP, yes. > Actually it is more likely that when they POP they will get several messages > at once, so less cost than catch several SMTP emails. Actually, the most likely is "POP once an hour for a once-a-week posting, and you've totally blown 167 pointless transactions". And in fact, unless you're able to make the POP check frequency less than the posting frequency, you'll lose. > Whitelisting can be subverted by spammers: > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/01/spam.chainletter/index.html > "If I were a spammer, I'd be working very hard to perfect this technique," he > said..." And your proposal does nothing to stop this, since it won't look like bulk mail, it will look like personal mail. From people you know and trust, and everything. > Yes we probably do. Just because the DCC can not measure bulk email reliably > doesn't mean Hosts, ISPs, and other software can not. BrightMail already is ( > just signup for an Earthlink account and try really hard to get some spam), and > I will also be probably be demonstrating something soon. So why do we need to move off mailing lists, when the problem is solved? > It is has nothing to do with what spammers will or will not do. It has to do Actually, it has everything to do with what they will or wont do. > with what Hosts, ISPs, etc are currently prevented from doing. Since they can > not determine what is spam, they can not enforce any law. And separating out mailing list traffic doesn't change matters, really. You're left with a lot of non-bulk high-volume business e-mail (yes, you WANT this to get through, otherwise Amazon doesn't have a way to tell you easily about a problem with your order, or similar), a lot of person-to-person mail, and a lot of spam pretending to be one or the other of the above. The only thing you've cut out is spam to mailing lists - and if you can solve the OTHER two flavors above, then this third is a non-issue anyhow. Given that so much spam is already breaking some law, why do you think "the ISPs could enforce a NEW law" would make any difference? >From another note: > Yes my proposal depends on that fact. Once you have the legitimate email > separated from the spam architecturally, then you can effectively increase the > cost of spamming to the point it is a non-economically viable activity. This would be wonderful, except what you're separating isn't legitimate/spam, it's mailing list/non mailing list. The two are orthogonal concepts. *plonk* Somebody wake me up if Shelby starts addressing the actual problem, rather than an orthogonal non-problem....
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
