On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:33:32 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said: > My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over > TLS on Port 26
Unfortunately, your attempt there didn't demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the email ecology of the sort needed to *actually* solve the spam problem. > Today I have something to show you. > > Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I > solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again... So actually *disclose* it already, rather than whining about how you've been treated. And there's this telling statement: > [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how > I'm gonna distribute the solution] You apparently don't understand that how the solution gets distributed is a very important part of whether the solution will work. Bottom line: You hit most of the points in Vernon Schryver's FUSSP list, plus an amazing number of points in John Baez's crackpot index. Not a good way to start. So because I'm needing some entertainment, I went to go check the Medium post. > "Spammers have no idea what's going on INSIDE the email system. i.e. They > have no idea whether their mail gets marked as spam or not." Oh, you poor, poor uneducated person. Spammers have a *very good* idea of whether it was marked as spam. > "Now, what if your first mail get rejected with an error message like > "Unauthorized Sender"? > Would you still write your follow-up mail? No, right?" At which point you totally miss the point - for a spammer, the reasonable thing to do is *send another mail with a different From: value*, in hopes of hitting one that's an "authorized sender". > "So when mails get rejected with an error message, spammers gonna remove your > email address from their email list. That's because your email address is a > dead end for them." OK, I'm done here. We obviously have a total lack of understanding of the problem space, and it's very unlikely that an actually correct solution will arise from that. Also, I'll offer you a totally free piece of technical advice: Those SAD entries in the DNS that you're hoping to use to tie domains together are trivially forgeable. To save everybody else the effort: As far as I can tell, he's re-invented plus addressing, and says that if everybody creates mailboxes john.sm...@example.com for personal mail, and a john.smith+na...@example.com for nanog mail, and john.smith+my-b...@example.com for his bank emails, spam will apparently give up in defeat There's a whole bunch more, including assuming that Joe Sixpack *will* create a separate address for each "transactional" piece of mail, that spammers won't send mail that looks like personal mail, that spammers won't create bogus DNS entries, and a few other whoppers...
