Re: proposal for built-in spam burden & emailprivacy protection

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I guess this didn't make it off list...

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Ed Gerck wrote:

> Not true. After you send an email and you'd get a bounce requesting an
> encrypted message, with the public-key included. 

Actually, there are already a couple systems that work like this.  
Qsecretary is one.  If I recall, someone is trying to patent this, even
though as a scheme, its been around since majordomo, or longer.  It
doesn't work well in a number of situations. I think if qsecretary sees
another qsecretary bounce, it can do the right thing (not positive about
that---Dan?).  But there is no guarentee that two different
bounce/responder systems will work correctly.  These systems also fail
with agents.

Eg, How does my voip gateway email me my phone messages?  What about my
Network management software? I want an email saying my customer just went
down.  How does my pager handle all of this?

Agents are becoming more and more pervasive. No doubt my microwave will
soon email me that my popcorn is ready, and my oven will tell me when to 
baste the turkey, and my car will email me when its time for service.

These things work ok in small close knit groups, but don't scale well.  
The fact that they don't scale is what makes them useful to the small
group. If you solve the agent/scaling problem, you solve the spammers
problem, too, and the usefullness is lost.

		--Dean




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]