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

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

rd wrote:
> "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.
...
>>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.

Now you're talkin'. It is reassuring to see that some people
understand the bigger picture here. Yes, I agree there would be
an opportunity to address many other issues, like the ones you
have cited.

> 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.

Yes! Thank you.

> 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.  

Yep - logistics.

> 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).

Well, if some were to start offering a port 26 service (smtp2?), then
perhaps with time we'll see dual-mode delivery, until such time
everyone supports the new protocol.

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

YES! That is why I took the opportunity to lay out some of my
rambling thoughts. I don't have the energy or the time to do this,
but I would be glad for someone else to do this.

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

I am encouraged that there are some out there that are willing to
think beyond "filtering". We need a solution folks. If there
were a golden opportunity for Internet fame (which could help Ada),
then I see this as one.

Just think: folks that insisted on having C versions, would have to
port your Ada code to C/C++!  The reference version would of course
be the Ada version!

Any fish biting yet?

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg