John, Before someone makes suggestions about the magic bullet that will solve spam problems, they should at least familiarize themselves with the rather interesting range of startup company approaches to handling the problem. Everything ranging from keyword filtering by a commercial version of spamassassin, to patenting a haiku. And they should become familiar with the public policy and politics debates on the topic. This is a multifaceted problem, including the minor fact that people's definition of "spam" is highly variable. At this stage it appears clear that no single magic bullet is possible and that we should start viewing spam the way we view roaches. We don't like them. They are bad. We do a range of things to get rid of them. It all helps. But we do not eliminate them. We simply reduce them to a tolerable level. d/ Tuesday, January 7, 2003, 3:22:06 PM, you wrote: John> Almost all of the measures you have suggested have serious John> side-effects or critical prerequisites. In the last analysis, John> most of us would rather put up with a little spam than pay the John> prices involved. Others are sufficiently fed up with spam that John> they are willing to consider some very radical changes to how we John> use email. But, regardless of how that comes out, the decisions John> have been fairly explicit: people have thought of your John> suggestions, and others, and their impact, and have made fairly John> explicit decisions about preferences. My comment about X.400 of John> a few weeks ago was intended to address those issues, but John> apparently made a reference too far in the past, or too subtle, John> for some of the people who have been participating in the John> discussion. d/ -- Dave <mailto:dhc2@dcrocker.net> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850