Your scheme would keep the email out of the mailbox and out of the client -- I like it. But it still generates traffic to my network. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Shore [mailto:ietf@soaring.demon.co.uk] > Sent: May 26, 2003 4:33 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: spam > > > J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > > >The *only* thing that's going to stop spam is charging for email. > >Everything else is a waste of time, because you're going to run into > >impossible arguments trying to define what's spam, and what's > >legitimate bulk email (q.v. the recent message about IETF-Announce > >email). > > That's an interesting argument. I suspect I've missed a > lot of the > prior discussion, since I'm not sure how charging for email > would work > (Who charges? Who pays? Could it ever work in a free market? Aren't > there legal implications?). > > It was your "only" that caught my attention, though. > Being able to > pick and choose my email addresses, I have had a reasonable amount of > success using different email addresses for different stores and > subscriptions: if an address begins to collect an > unreasonable amount of > spam, I stop using it. One "technical" solution that would discourage > spam would be to add a key (a text string, for example) to the email > header. The user gives out their email address with different keys to > different groups of people; if a key attracts spam, all they > have to do > is stop accepting mail with that key. It would also make > organising mail > very easy. On the negative side, the extra complexity might prove > challenging for some... > > > Andrew. > -- > Andrew Shore. > Looking to offer a managed WLAN Service? Download our market report, completed by Telechoice Market Analyst group, to learn more. <a href="http://www.bridgewatersystems.com/learnmore";>http://www.bridgewatersystems.com/learnmore</a>