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

["Chris" <rebel@rebel.com.au>]

>
> 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.
>


NNTP does allow a news server to ignore mail originating from known
spam/objectionable sources

it is the CHOICE of news server administrator to accept or deny from a
source

many news servers refuse to accept certain newsgroups

this is an example of a *pull* system functioning perfectly

and a good example of why pull should be a serious contender for use in
e-mail



> 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.

you miss the point

if the recipient refuses the email it does not even get onto the transport
system

just a small portion of it

In the end this is about giving choice to the recipient!

>
> 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


how does one police a "consent to receive"?


>


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg