>> However, what is the harm in making an RFC and then find out if enforcers >> will enforce?????? > >you appear to presume that you can get consensus support for such a plan >from within IETF. No, no. I try to never beg. I came here to make a public proposal and some points for the purposes of public record. I never expected any one to really do any thing on this proposal now. But by placing the idea into public domain now, as the rate of spam approaches the asymptote of 100%, then mailing list administrators can come back to this idea as a way to save themselves. Actually at that point, they won't need the RFC or STD, because all bulk email will be blocked and they will be forced to just go straight to offering a "pull" solution (whether it be web, usenet, pop or whatever) so recievers can still get their mailing list messages amongst the 10,000 spams per day. I am not sure exactly how long this will take, but without another solution or paradigm shift, I figure 2 - 5 years tops. > even if you could get such support (which you cannot) How do survey their opinion?? >note that there's no enforcement of IETF's other opinions, even in cases where >failure to adhere to IETF standards costs billions of dollars every year. why >would this case be any different? Because enforcers want to do something and will be under increasing pressure to do something against bulk email. >there are a lot of ways to solve the spam problem that will work if "everybody >does it my way." I have seen none. Email signing won't work. No amount of <!plonks> from Randy Bush will change that. Changing SMTP won't work long term, etc.. > so far, nobody has figured out how to impose their will on >the rest of the net. It is not my, your, or IETF will, but the votes of 500 million (through their actions against spam) that will impose. Shelby Moore http://AntiViotic.com