In message <v03110706b1a53618090f@[206.28.74.88]>,
Ken Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Think about this for a second... The simplest way to filter out all junk
>>E-mail on any given system which supports a substantial number of different
>>and independent E-mail accounts/user-IDs would be to write a little routine
>>in your MTA (or add a front end for your MTA) which simply keeps track of
>>the number of messages incoming from a given IP address within the past N
>>minutes (where `N' is some modest number like 30, 60, 120, or 180).
>
>Dunno whether this is true but I'm sure you'll never get any but a minority
>of list owners to implement it without coercing them somehow...
I prefer to call it gentle persuasion.
Either sign up or else your mailing list traffic will be rejected by my
site as being probable spam.
Of course, if we are talking about the monkeys.com domain (total of 1 user)
nobody gives a damn. However if AOL decided to do this, or Hotmail, then
I think that you would find a lot of list admins getting with the program.
>... and that would be wrong.
OK. I'll bite. Why?
Are mailing list administrators like minor dieties or something? Is there
something wrong with asking them to do their part to help end sbulk E-mail
spam on the Internet??
>People can't even adhere to a reasonably uniform bounce message
>format, and there are demonstrable economic and social benefits (selfish
>ones!) to that, so why would the sea part for this?
Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. But most people are so sick of spam
that I would think that it would be a much easier sell than you make it
out to be.
Oh sure, there are always going to be clueless twits that gever get it
and who refuse to play, but that doesn't really matter. Critical mass is
the key... i.e. getting to the point where most list admins just know,
aprori, that ``this is the way things are done nowadays''.
>Another idea, somewhat comparable, is a standard that dictates the format
>of all automated list subscriptions which would be sent to the individual's
>ISP, not to the list server, there to have the local ISP automatically take
>note of the list and allow it through, and forward the request to the list
>server. Otherwise no BCCed mail or multiple hits.
Yup. That would work too, I think.
>This is a trivial software problem...
Well... maybe not entirely trivial.
>... if the standard exists...
Why does your alternative idea require any sort of standard?? You could
implement it your way on your site, and I could have it implemented in a
somewhat different way on my site. And we would both still be happy and
both still be protected from spammers.
>... but it never will and if it does
>people will ignore it especially Microsoft. 8)
I actually am beginning to like your idea... perhaps even more than my own.
But I still don't see the need for any sort of universal standard here. In
short, I think that _your_ idea can probably be implemented without either
the help or consent or support of Microsoft.
Here's a scenario...
I open a new ISP. and I have a mail server setup so that it captures and
remembers all _outgoing_ messages addressed to anything that fits one of
the following patterns:
*-request@*
majordomo@*
listserv@*
listproc@*
After this, the relevant recipient domains for these outgoing messages be-
come (in effect) whitelisted for sending ``bulk'' mail (i.e. destined for
multiple recipients) to my domain/server. All others are, by default,
blocked from sending bulk mail to my server, where ``bulk'' is defined as
a bunch of messages (more than 20?) coming from your server to my server
within some short period of time (say 60 minutes).
I can think of several refinements to this basic scheme.... for example
remembering who sent mail to which list and checking all inputs against
that sort of a table to make sure that people are only getting stuff from
lists that they themselves communicated with in the past.
If this sort of a thing would _not_ work, then please tell me why.
Of course, there is the problem of pre-existing ISPs with bazillions of
pre-existing customers who are already signed up to a bazillion or so
legitimate lists. Sp you would have to work out some way of getting all
of _those_ lists (or most of them anyway) into your local ``whitelisting''
data base for ``bulk mail'' sources before you cut over to the new system.
But after that you would just tell your users: ``Hey! If you want to be
on XYZ mailing list, then when you subscribe to XYZ, do it by sending your
outbound subscription request through our mail servers, and then it will be
OK. Otherwise you won't actually get to receive the mailing list traffic.''
>Show of hands: nope, we don't have a spam problem in any case...
Eh?? Where do _you_ live??
>... and no wish
>to open the list to non-subscribers so we can have the opportunity to
>pursue all this encryption. 8)
Sorry, I was following you right up until this cryptic comment which I can't
even parse into English. Care to try that last part again?
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/
