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

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

>
> What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull
> systems?
>
> Have I missed something?

yes you have

pull forces the id of the remote server *without* rewriting the entire mail
transport system

it can be implemented gradually

i.e. mail from non pull servers are given a grace period (1-2yrs?)

after that point all non pull mail is returned with an error message

most important....

PULL DOES NOT DECIDE WHAT IS OR WHAT ISN'T SPAM.

only the receiver is in the position to do that.

thats why I recommend a "class" system be instantiated at the same time (as
pull or whatever ID system)

so the user can set rules something like
"deny all messages from unknown"
"deny class::UCE"
"accept class::UCE::hardware::electrical_tools"
"accept class::personal"
(examples only)


this is my legal + technical argument

both must co-exist to get a spam *reduction* system working

there will never be a spam prevention system

because spam cannot be defined!

Regards
Chris



> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jon
> Kyme
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:46 PM
> To: Dag Kihlman
> Cc: ASRG
> Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)
>
>
> What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull
> systems?
>
> Have I missed something?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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