Paul, > Paul Vixie wrote: > [large snap] > my own ideas have to do with trustbrokers, certificates for both > mailboxes and transfer/relay agents, and provable confidence in > subjective values. but maybe all that's just crap, and what's > actually necessary and sufficient would have a completely > different look/feel to it than anything i've yet considered.
I'm with you here, but keep reading. > we (the e-mail producing/consuming community) have the > technology, we have the collective wit and wisdom, we have the > proven commercial value of the service. what we lack, dear > ietf, is simply: leadership. Given what you wrote just above (which I agree with), what is your assessment that a system such as what you have in mind would successfully reach IETF consensus? Look just the past 2 days how many trolls posted on this ML to lobby for the spammer's cause. The reason I agree with Noel along the lines that the only way is making spammers pay for sending email is not because I don't think that we don't have what it takes to invent a protocol, but because I think it will be torpedoed before it is born. Michel.
