Dean Anderson wrote: > On 10 Feb 2004, Franck Martin wrote: > ... > When you realign your anti-spam efforts from control of business to > control of techno-terrorists, the problem is quite a bit different, and > you can see also that things like signing and other things aren't going to > work. Signing doesn't work because it cannot provide a load per recipient, just per sender. Encryption with the recipient's public-key (as I am proposing) works because the spammer must encrypt each message for each recipient. This applies to lawful spammers as well, finally adding friction to email by creating a mandatory "fee" (burdenwise) to send messages. BTW, my previous posting provided a rationale for proposing the following requirement for any current or future mail system: - Users do not want requirements to pay for sending email or to be otherwise burdened in any way in order to stop spam. Stoping spam should not be a user's problem. The above anti-requirement is attainable, fair to all, and cannot be forged. Cheers, Ed Gerck