The reality is that im2000 is generally alot better approach for email infrastructure where you do not expect that every email would be delivered...
I like this, for normal mail transport. I don't see it as being of any particular anti-spam use, though; spam will simply be sent without using it, the way it is today. (Given all the usual deployment issues, it'll be a long time before anyone but the most lunatic fringe can afford to reject mail not sent using it.)
When the data is stored at the sender, no intermediary is able to "filter" this information based upon signatures.
That's not true. There are HTTP proxies that filter for malware.
Of course, a URL could be required to use a host name which would exceed the protections of an SPF IP address authorization scheme, but without the serious risks. Within the underlying transfer protocol, simply require the use of host names. : )
- it pushes the email burden back onto the sender - for real, not like many anti-spam companies claim.
What burden? Spamware generates the junk email on the fly.
- it makes the sender easier to track.
Moreso than the web site URLs in existing spam?
Plenty of spam doesn't have web URLs.
mathew
_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg