Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions

[Seth Breidbart <sethb at panix.com>]

gep2 at terabites.com wrote:

>>> Email should be changed so that the contents of a email lives on the
>>> sender's server until it is retrieved by the recipient.
>>
>> That was suggested a long time ago.  It works OK for lots of
>> situations, but not so well for legitimate senders without full-time
>> servers.
>
> Hmmm... that last phrase ALMOST sounds like an oxymoron...!  Care to
> explain?

How does my mother, on a PC that's usually turned off, send email to
my brother, without arranging in advance at what time she'll send it?

> The whole point of the change would be to FORCE senders to cover
> more of the costs of (and responsibility for) what they send, and
> that might in fact INCLUDE the need to provide (or pay an ISP to
> provide) precisely such 24/7 E-mail message storage, until the
> messages were picked up by the recipient.  Shifting those costs back
> to the sender is NOT entirely unreasonable, in principle.

Letting her ISP handle it makes sense.

> The earlier comment about how the recipient would identify themself
> to the sender-end message storage server is a more interesting one,
> although it strikes me that they could be given a stub kind of
> E-mail ("there is an e-mail message waiting for you, here's the IP
> address you need to contact, and the cookie you need to provide to
> retrieve it").

I thought I already suggested that (in different language).

> The key downside that I see is more from the standpoint of
> privacy/security, where the recipient may not relish the idea of
> revealing to the sender EXACTLY when they retrieved and read the
> message, or from where.

Then someone (trusted) will provide anonymity by putting a server in
between them.

Seth

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