On 8/13/02, Ted Gavin wrote: > >Just as there isn't only 'one problem', there isn't going >to be 'one solution'. The problem is multifaceted, and >much of it is subjective depending upon one's position in >the e-mail space. Agreed. On 8/13/02, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >Caitlin Bestler <caitlinb@rp.asomi.net> writes: >> My initial minimalist approach is to propose a standard >> whereby the source of an email can be authenticated, >> allowing receivers and relayers the option of rejecting >> or simply segregating email without authenticated >> sources. > >Thus leading to masses of authenticated spam? Anyone can >generate an RSA key. There are enough primes out there >that you can generate one for each piece of spam and still >never run out. :) > I didn't propose an authentication method. Any that is based upon one-way communication will either not work, or require a central registry. Neither is desirable. An optional reverse connection is probably a required part of any solution. >> Attempts to *classify* mail as "unsolicited" will only >> result in years of debate as to which groups are >> entitled to exemptions -- witness the debates on >> telemarketing rules. > >And yet the laws on junk faxing have, largely, stopped >junk faxes. One of the nice things about laws is that, >being interpreted by human beings, they need not be >perfect, just good enough that the intent is obvious. > Precisely because phone calls *can* be traced. Without tracebility there can be no accountability.