Re: [Asrg] Call for contributors to develop `pay per fraudulantmessage` I-D, code

[Devdas Bhagat <devdas at dvb.homelinux.org>]

On 28/12/04 17:18 -0800, Paul Lambert wrote:
>  
> > idea that someone has to decide what is spam and what is not.
> 
> No ... spam is subjective.  Formaly deciding what is or is not spam
> is the wrong way to proceed.

The objective definition of spam is Unsolicited Bulk Messaging.
Spam is not about content, it's about consent.

> 
> Instead, consider what happens if all mail is 'tagged'.  Filtering
> becomes
> a more reliable mechanism since there would be standard recoginzable
> tags.
> Filtering could be based on whatever a user or provider chose to use as
> a tagging criteria.  The filtering criteria would of course include some
> the measure of the trust in the tag's creator.  Now ... We already have

And you trust the creator on what basis? We already have spammers
spoofing headers, so can you tell me why they will not spoof the tags?

One rather well known way of tagging the message is to use GPG/PGP or
S/MIME signatures.
If the signature validates, you know the mail came from someone with
access to the private key, presumably the owner of the key.

We all know how well that is working out.

Devdas Bhagat

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