On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:49:12 -0500, Craig Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do we need SPF or Madrid? For seamlessness? Heck with that. > PGP/GPG would help to actually fix a problem rather than patch one.
On the other hand, signing messages with GPG only deals with one of the problems with spam -- the waste of the recipient's time. The problem that companies and ISPs are more concerned with is resource usage. If you have to store the spam on your mail spool, then it's costing you money. The only way to get rid of _that_ problem is to stop the spam before it reaches disk. That could either be done by stopping the spam earlier in the chain or making it unprofitable to spam. If everyone used GPG and checked signatures on every message, spam wouldn't be worth sending. 100% GPG utilization is not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. Who's likely not to use it? Who's likely to respond to spam? I suspect you'll find a lot of overlap: people who are somewhat naive about computers and the Internet. -- Michael A. Marsh http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
