Paul Vixie <vixie@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > the principle i've always followed is that > "all communications must be by mutual consent" > ... Excellent principle, Paul. I'd like to put it at the head of the list. I've also gleaned (mostly from this list over the last week): Ed Gerck <egerck@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The spam problem starts with *freely* accepting mail from strangers. "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Spam is and will remain a long-term battleground and it needs serious > effort to counter. Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Every mail message carries a practically unforgeable (for spammers) > token identifying its source. That token is the IP address of the > SMTP client. "Robert G. Brown" <rgb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > it is pointless to erect some expensive Maginot Line and pretend it > will solve the problem. Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There is no and can never be a hoop that is low enough to pass > enough human strangers but exclude spammers' computers. Senator Gordon Humprey said: > If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less, tax it. Ed Gerck <egerck@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Spammers need scale (because they get a very low return). Therefore, > part of the solution should be to deny scalability to spammers. Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If we can communicate the fact that a message is discarded because > it was categorized as spam back to the sender without adverse side > effects, then occasional false positives aren't much of a problem. Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If you reject the message during the SMTP session you don't need to > generate a bounce message, the other side will do this. John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Errors returned after the close of the SMTP transaction are likely > to go to (and confuse) an innocent party; thus such errors should > be deprecated for any email identified as spam. ==== Not a bad start, IMHO. :^) Additions are welcome; corrections by the authors are welcome; suggestions for re-wording are acceptable... -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>