Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <g3Kna.5120$mZ4.89596@news.xtra.co.nz>, "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes:
> "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
> news:U$J6hEh5KA1v@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> 
>> Certainly.  If you choose to associate with spammers (in the DNSbl
>> comment I made just before my line above), you are already fighting
>> this battle every day.  (By "choose to associate", I include staying
>> with an ISP who will not dump the spammers.)
> 
> Sorry, I guess we've drifted quite a bit off-topic here.
> Let's try to get a little closer to the subject line [before
> the (was ...) part]. For example: your DNS comments
> were a bit above my head - I know what you are talking
> about but it would be a little hard to translate that into the
> everyday e-mail usage.

A DNSbl lists IP addresses from which spam emanates.  Many ISPs
reject all messages from the IP addresses on one or more such lists.
That can reduce their message handling expenses up to 50% and give
their customers a cleaner email environment.  Opinions of customers
vary, and customers should ensure they choose a receiving ISP whose
attitude about this matches their own.

> How exactly did I choose to associate with spammers?

By patronizing an ISP that will pool your email with that of spammers,
giving you the same sending IP address as the spam.   Typically the
email server sending address, different from "your" IP address (if any).

> Am I supposed to check the policies of each and every
> ISP provider I happen to use at the moment? And enforce
> their no-spam policy?

You should choose your ISPs wisely, consulting DNSbls and newsgroups
to check their reputation.

> In case you have not noticed, my original point was exactly
> that it would be nice to have the situation changed so that
> everyone can post to an open address if they are willing to
> bet a dime or so on it.

It would be nice, but that technology was lost when the world chose
the SMTP "business" model rather than the X.400 business model.  This
is Gresham's law as applied to network protocols, made clear in this
case not by a bit-level analysis but rather by the interaction of the
ivory tower protocol with the real world.

I don't mean to burden the group with an off-topic discussion, but
efforts to produce the next killer application in Ada need domain
knowledge in addition to software engineering techniques.  The domain
of spamfighting includes a lot of information about social interactions
rather than just cryptography.  If someone is really prepared to be a
unifying force to get all vendors to agree on a new protocol, that is
a monumental effort and I wish you luck.  Just make sure you cover all
platforms used for email, including Macintosh 68K and VAX.

-- 
==============================================================================
The Boulder Pledge: "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything
     offered to me as the result of an unsolicited email message. Nor will
     I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings
     to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival
     of the online community."
==============================================================================