"test" <test@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Notes:If server dones't supports new tech,just do it as traditional > server. In other words, the old way must still be supported. Therefore, the flow of spam can (and therefore will) continue unabated, so long as the spammers use the old way. Furthermore, even if adopted by spammers, your way will only save a bit of computer communication bandwidth. However, that capacity keeps growing by leaps and bounds every year, and has become dirt-cheap, at least in bulk or compared to years past. The real cost of spam is the *human attention* bandwidth! That capacity grows at negligible speed. If your "technology" relies on human judgement, especially from the end recipient, to say what is spam or not, then it is doing absolutely nothing to save human attention bandwidth. What is needed is some way that will stop spam even if neither the spammers nor most legitimate senders adopt the new way, and before the vast majority of the spam is ever seen by the recipient. It need not be perfect; it need only reduce the flood to a trickle. However, it should be as perfect as possible in NOT generating false POSITIVES, which can be a kiss of death for a business. So far, a combination of just being damn careful with your address (such as using throwaways, and web-forms instead of mailto links), and Bayesian filtering, looks to be the best bet IMHO. Being careful has reduced my spam count from the hundreds per day I get on some old addies, to the few a week I get on a few dozen current ones all put together. (That even includes THIS one, which is on publicly-accessible unaltered web archives.) And that's with *no* filtering at all.... -- David J. Aronson, Spamfighter since 1994 Work: http://destined.to/program Play: http://listen.to/davearonson _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf