Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what)

[rd <nospam@spam.no>]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote:
> 
> rd wrote:
> > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote:
> >>Preben Randhol wrote:
> > [clip]
> >>>Besides spam filters is something
> >>>people need so it could promote Ada95.
> >>>
> >>>Wish I could make it myself, but I simply don't have the time at the
> >>>moment.
> >>...
> >>>Preben
> >>
> >>I personally believe that as long as email is free (and we like it
> >>that way), SPAM will continue to be a big problem. To keep email
> >>free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up
> >>using two forms of email on the Internet:
> >>
> >>   1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25);
> >>      which will continually battle with spam filters and such.
> >>   2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?)
> >>
> >>Perhaps the 2nd kind, can piggy back off of the first, by either
> >>using a similar but extended protocol, and probably
> >>using a new TCP/IP port # to avoid the log jam that occurs
> >>on port 25 as spammers spam away.
> >>
> >>The new email protocol would make use of PKI exchanges (PGP?),
> >>so that only those people that you have shared certificates
> >>with, can successfully deposit email in your mailbox (this
> >>would be great for kids, so that only their friends can
> >>send them mail etc.). If someone gives away the cert (if the
> >>protocol allows it), then you revoke it, and issue a new one
> >>if necessary.
> >>
> >>Where the protocol research comes in (I think), is the method of
> >>sharing and administering certs in a way that is easy for
> >>grandmothers to work with.
> >>
> >
> > For the second protocol, <a href="http://www.jabber.org">Jabber</a>
> > might be just the thing.  The best part about Jabber is the real time
> > messaging capability, and if I was designing the second protocol, I would
> > include this functionality.
> 
> If I skimmed the site correctly, it doesn't address the "solicited
> email only" problem. It seems to be more concerned with XML and IM.
> 
> What I really want, is a "solicited email only" channel, so that I
> can give my electronic business card (read "cert.") to associates,
> and not get pestered with offensive SPAM that I have to delete
> every morning.  I also want to protect my kids from this kind of
> crap.

My big sticking point was the real-time messaging.  I haven't had an
operational ICQ in years (I'm not going to upgrade) and it would solve
several little problems for me.  Bonus points if it was encrypted by
default.
 
> The only way to eliminate SPAM completely, is to give the
> "key" to those you will accept mail from, and reject everything
> else.  BTW, ACT does this informally by insisting that you include
> "GNAT" in the subject line. That "GNAT" acts as the "key". What
> I'd like to see then, is a more sophisticated form of this, where the
> key isn't so easily sharable with the world (and perhaps unique
> to the sender so that it cannot be shared).

Designing a protocol for this probably wouldn't be overly difficult.
It'd really just be email guarded by a public/private key scheme, with
filtering based on who has your public (semi-public) key.

Since we're redesigning email, we might as well go ahead and integrate
encryption all the way through it. Selling ISPs on this would be a
cakewalk: spam is blocked by default, so spammers will eventually stop
spamming; it would envolve about the same server power as email does
now, but be far more powerful; if the text messaging features were
included, it would solve the interoffice security problems some
companies have (people would use instant messagers like AIM to send
stuff that should be kept secure); POP3 could be dumped for something
that uses more than a flimsy password; and many other little problems
with email could be resolved.

The encryption schemes to solve all these problems exist now, it's just
a matter of people sitting down and pounding out the actual protocol.
I can't think of a reason it wouldn't be immediately adopted.  To my
mind, the biggest problem communication schemes face is not being
mainstream.  It's already not a difficult matter to encrypt emails
with PGP, but I still don't get encrypted emails, and I don't send them
myself (often).

And to stay sort of inline with the original poster, doing this in Ada
first would be a good way to promote the language.

Sorry for rambling, I tend to do that when I start to get excited about
a topic.