Vernon Schryver <vjs@CALCITE.RHYOLITE.COM> writes: > I think the DCC is the best idea, but I may be biased. > The DCC is currently hitting more than 80% of spam. See > http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ or http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/ I use a very large variety of techniques to block spam, and I'm something like 95% successful. The 5% is starting to kill me, and making things substantially more successful than that is likely not possible without blocking lots of legitimate mail. This is the point I've been trying to make. In the face of 55,000 spam messages coming in this year, 95% is okay. In the face of 150,000 or 200,000 spam messages next year, it is not okay, and the bandwidth alone is going to start to become a serious issue for me. > Spam is best defined as unsolicited bulk mail. Its content is > irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is unsolicited and bulk. > Bulk is the critical "scaling" aspect, because if only 1% of the > 20,000,000 business in only the U.S. decided to send you monthly > reminders of their existence, your mailbox really would be useless. This is key. People keep claiming "how can you possibly define spam for legal purposes?" Unsolicited+Bulk is all you need. My United skymiles summary is not unsolicited -- neither is my IETF mailing list subscription. The query that the guy I met at Usenix sends me asking if I'd like to buy the product we discussed is not bulk. > It is sad that is also nonsense, because people who are able to make > telephone or in-person "cold calls" are incapable of understanding that > their message might not be welcome. You will never make those marketers > understand; you can only block them and make them fear your laws. Indeed. Unfortunately, we do not yet have those laws. -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com -- "Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."