RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

It is worth noting that the word spam was coined in response to a failure
that appeared in NNTP, a pull system long before the problem spread to
email.

Specifically it was Dick Depew's ARMM robot...


The issue is not how the bits are shipped. Every email communication is by
its nature initiated by the sender. It is the ability to initiate without
any form of authorization that creates the spam problem. In effect the
sender can consume unbounded respources. I don't see how tweaking the
details of the protocol affects this.

The key issue is communicating the consent to receive. I have previously
made a proposal on this topic - I will repost in RFC format later, that
allows this information to be communicated using the SMTP protocol.

The problem with consent to receive is that it is available only in a very
limited number of circumstances.

		Phill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@ox.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:25 AM
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 
> 
> 
> "Chris" <asrg@rebel.com.au> wrote:
> > I would like to re-investigate pull mail systems as a 
> viable solution to
> > reducing unsolicited mail
> 
>   What's wrong with the current system?
> 
>   If you don't know what's wrong with the current system, and why/how
> it's being abused, you have no idea if your re-designed system will
> have the same (or worse) problems.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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