Re: [Asrg] Proposal ....

["ietf@centipaid.com" <ietf@centipaid.com>]

Hi Art,

Sounds like AMDP, check
http://www.amdpmail.com/mod/fileman/files/draft-amdp-00.txt

:)

----- Original Message Follows -----
> 
> I recently made a proposal over at slashdot which seemed
> to garner a fair  amount of support.
> 
> It is this:
> 
> When the mail client sends a message, it only goes as far
> as their local  mail server.  The local mail server stores
> the body of the message and then  sends the header on to
> the recipient with a ID through which the body may  be
> picked up. 
> When the header arrives at the destination, the client on
> the other side  downloads the body of the message from the
> specified host. 
> There are a variety of advantages to a system such as this
> including: 
> 1) There is a server which is responsible for the message
> that may be  tracked down.  Forging headers (as spammers
> now do) will not hide the  origins of the message.
> 
> 2) The system administrator on the other end will have
> time to "cancel" the  message before it arrives at most of
> the recipients mailboxes.  (i.e., the  sysadmin looks and
> George has 20,000,000 messages in the outbox waiting to 
> be picked up. The sysadmin looks at the messages, sees
> they are spam, then  he nukes them.)
> 
> 3) If the messages are nuked before they are picked up,
> the message header  is simply thrown away by the mail
> client or written to a log or put in a  special mailbox or
> .. in either case, it is totally transparent to the end 
> user and the end user never even knows they have been
> spammed. 
> Given this: It would also be possible to develop a self
> moderation capability. 
> For example, the sending server has a specific port or
> reporting mechanism  and given a: 1) Server ID, 2) User ID
> , 3) Message ID that is sent to it in  a "Spam Report" it
> could verify that the message had actually been sent by 
> the user specified and if so could flag it to the
> sysadmin.  Furthermore,  if N spam complaints came in for
> verified messages for a specified user in  a given period,
> the account could be automatically put on hold until 
> cleared by the sysadmin. 
> Also, since there is a server which is directly
> responsible for the  message, it would be easy to
> automatically add the server or server/user to  a
> blacklist.  Messages from servers that are blacklisted
> would simply be  thrown away -- again transparently to the
> user. 
> I personally don't believe that any one scheme is going to
> win the battle  against spam.  What we need to do is
> create a framework each node of which  reinforces all the
> other nodes in the framework and makes it progressively 
> more difficult for spammers to conduct their business. 
> -Art
> -- 
> Art Pollard
> http://www.lextek.com/
> Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg