At 10:52 AM 8/16/2002 -0400, Brian Bisaillon wrote: >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. I'll buy that. > That source is the service provider I don't follow that. The source is the computer that ran the SMTP process from which the message started. If that is run by a service provider, then so be it, but I should think that most mail is originated by an edge network (Cisco, in my case), not a service provider. The Hello Banner proposal is interesting, in that you can stop it at some previous hop - the spam I get through ISI could, for example, be stopped at ISI. But it will always be the computer that receives my SMTP Hello Banner, which will only be the originator in cases where the originator sends the message directly to me. That is true for some spam, but by no means all. >The Internet is an open and interoperable medium. You can't change the >design because it's too late. I disagree. Suppose, for example, that we designed a new mail protocol (call it X.399 if you like) and convinced everyone to implement it on their systems. If it worked at least as well as SMTP and additionally kept spam out, I'll bet it would be a short time before the only folks using SMTP were the spammers.