At 11:53 PM 9/6/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Actually, the point is that there was no way, even within usenet, to >prevent pollution of individual groups with innappropriate spam or off >topic messages. Many groups have fallen into disuse for this reason. Afaics, that is irrelevant, because even a mailing list can be polluted with spam. Your point is against the nature of a public list or group, but my proposal is not designed to fix that problem. My proposal is designed to fix the problem of receivers being forced to receive bulk email from any sender. My proposal forces email addresses to not be public to legitimate bulk email. And then all other bulk senders can be dealt with more effectively. Then of course this does solve the problem for mailing lists also in the end, because then all bulk email gets killed (by a combination of legislative, judicial, ISP, Host, and software features). The fundamental problem with doing any thing about spam, is there is no way to measure it, because the subjective measurement of "unsolicited" is not architectually defined. The point is that if I choose to receive email from list or group (irregardless of whether that list or group has effective policies to prevent incoming spam posts), then it would be helpful to *architectually* differentiate that which I subjectively decide is legitimate bulk email senders from that which I decide is UBE (spam) senders. Once you define the architecture, then all kinds of important features can be built on top of it to deal more effectively with spam ranging from legislative, judicial, ISP, Host, and software. >The other point to understand is that the paradigms (usenet vs email) are >and have been different for very good reasons. And if one assumes that >both paradigms are desired, then it is necessary to address how one >enforces the separation. No one to date has figured out even a set of >definitions to address the needs, much less mechanisms. I am unclear how you think this applies to my proposal? Shelby Moore http://AntiViotic.com