jdow wrote:
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. Then the zombies will
adapt to using IMAP or POP instead. While it's true that this then
presents the "they have to know the password" hurdle for the zombies,
you get that same advantage by requiring SMTP-AUTH. So, by switching
to requiring SMTP-AUTH you get the same exact advantage you would
have gotten by switching to IMAP or POP for sending. Your method has
_no_ gain over existing technology.
Your proposal is really just deferring the issue, not fixing it.
You're moving the problem from one place to another, not removing the
problem.
In the mean time it moves MOST people email storage into a position
for REALLY EASY government examination for "bad thoughts". It's ideal
for thought police. IMAP stores email on the server rather than my
private machine where there are some legal protections remaining.
{^_^}
Actually IMAP can do both - server storage or local storage.
