At 01:43 AM 9/7/2003 -0400, you wrote: >On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:07:10 +0800, Shelby Moore said: > >> It is a wrong assumption to equate commercial email with bulk email. > >Which is why you're trying to rewrite how bulk email is done in order to deal >with *one segment* of commercial e-mail. Now I understand fully. No I am trying to eliminate (drastically reduce) spam (UBE). And, I am trying to give receivers the ability to opt-in and opt-out of all legitimate bulk email under their own power. In my mind, that is more important than existing legitimate bulk email paradigm. I can understand you and other's vested interest in existing legitimate bulk email paradigm, but I don't agree it is more important. When spam is 99% of all email you recieve, you may begin to care also. It won't be too long from now... Fortunately what this discussion is proving to me so far, is that architectual change will be resisted fiercely by vested groups that control the design of the internet. This means that my new (soon to be patent pending) algorithm for http://AntiViotic.com will have a near monopoly in the market. So for me and users of my service it will be great. But for the rest of users, spammers will be forced to actually increase the amount of email they send in the self-feeding model of my algorithm. Unfortunately, the rest of the email universe will be imploded by an accelerating rate of spam. Just imagine what spammers will do when confronted with an insubvertable algorithm that can detect bulk. I came here to see if there was a better way, but I guess we will have to do it the hard way (and very profitable for me). This is all conjecture (vaporware) at this point...but very well researched conjecture. I'll be back here in this list later (probably a year from now) when your needs have changed to a more dire state regarding email.