From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e5c972d04da95d51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-17 10:13:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.uunet.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3E9EDD3D.5010805@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) References: <3E9D61C0.5070103@cogeco.ca> <3E9D8090.F86AF4EC@spam.no> <3E9D8625.4090308@cogeco.ca> <3E9DCD66.530F5CE9@spam.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:58:37 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1050598717 198.96.223.163 (Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:58:37 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:58:37 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36242 Date: 2003-04-17T12:58:37-04:00 List-Id: 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