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: 2003-04-19 13:10:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!eusc.inter.net!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <3E9D61C0.5070103@cogeco.ca> <3E9D8090.F86AF4EC@spam.no> <3E9D8625.4090308@cogeco.ca> <3E9D9642.2030303@cogeco.ca> <878yuae2uu.fsf@inf.enst.fr> <3E9EDB7B.2090901@cogeco.ca> <3E9FAA18.1040909@crs4.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1050783031 10589 134.91.1.15 (19 Apr 2003 20:10:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:10:31 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/831)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36310 Date: 2003-04-19T20:10:31+00:00 List-Id: Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: : : In some countries it is illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail : (or to make unsolicited commercial phone calls). So if you set up your : mail server to reject unsigned messages with a polite comment requesting : that people sign their letters with a valid identifiable signature (and : maybe also a reference to the rules about unsolicited commercial : e-mail), you would be able to catch the senders of unsolicited : commercials and thus most likely be able to scare them from sending : anything to you in the first place. That sounds just like the old way of catching senders when they didn't have a fake email address, with flaming to follow. One or more central signature verifying authorities are certainly problematic in that someone will have to guarantee absence of abuse of the data base. We don't manage absence of abuse of spam mail, so there... If you want the possibility of anonymous email, not just for aquiring customers, but also in the form of a cry for help of a person who had better not identify himself or herself to the surveilling governmental sniffers in, say, Costa Peligrosa, then a signiture is as fatal as an address that can be tracked down. Mail abuse is a social, organisational problem, and cannot be solved ignoring its social characteristic. In a world where money is part of decision making, money is one powerful means to control things, absent better solutions like knowledgeable polititians and knowledgeable judges. (Or a better world in general :-) So if email trafic has to be paid for, counting every mail, spammers will think twice, because they must make a decision like everyone else who advertizes the traditional way. The decision criteria will be both about money and possible punishment. Social pressure is needed. The technical difficulty then is to find a way to make sure every email is handled only if an electric stamp is present. -- Georg