I don't see how filtering messages helps with bandwidth issues associated with spam. You still have to receive spam before you can filter it out and this is what uses up bandwidth. Spam needs to be stopped at the source before it even enters a receiving network. That source is the service provider and the fact is that those service providers don't take accountability for the service they provide. Electronic mail is an ungoverned medium and there is no accountability built-in and this is what promotes spam. I don't understand how laws can help when systems on the Internet cross many different jurisdictions accross the world. Also, changing the protocol or adding extensions results in an enormous amount of infrastructure change. Keep in mind, a "no soliciting" extension may not be a solution in another country where they have not adopted any laws to back it up. The Internet is an open and interoperable medium. You can't change the design because it's too late. The fact remains that user A can still send a message to user B and that user B has to receive that message before he/she can filter it out unless user B's network blocked out user A's network to begin with. Otherwise, there would have to be some way that spam messages would have never been sent from user A in the first place. So the question is how do you prevent spam before it happens? >>> "Bill Cunningham" <billcu@citynet.net> 08/16/02 07:17AM >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Einar Stefferud" <Stef@thor.nma.com> To: <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:16 AM Subject: Re: Why Spam is a problem > Opt out is not a good spam solution, since in most cases, the opt out > email address is generally used to collect good "live" addresses for > use by other spammers. > > So, we have mostly all learned to never reply to an opt out offer. > I have never seen one that worked, and now I never reply to them. > > How could the law detect that opt out FROM addresses do not become a > valuable commodity for other purposes? How deeply do you want to > bring the government into the protocol development and program coding > business? Are you going to station FBI officers in the spammer's > offices? > > To solve the problem, any anti-spam law has to require Opt-IN > procedures, and documentation of the Opt In actions. And even then, > they can fake the opt-in EMail documents. How many times already do > you get spam that claims they have your opt-in records. > > Come to think of it, I expect that the FAX opt out process also is > used to collect good (live) FAX numbers, these days. > > Cheers...\Stef When you go into a business you may see a "No Soliciting" sign. This sign is backed up by law. I've never seen a "Soliciters are welcome here" sign. If MIME protocols had built in extensions that were the equivalant of a "No Soliciting" sign, and were backed up by law, could that work? >