On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:27:13 -0800 Marc Perkel <m...@perkel.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking about what it would take to actually eliminate > spam or reduce it to less than 10% of what it is now. One of the > problems is the SMTP protocol itself. And a big problem with that is > that mail servers talk to each other using the same protocol as users > use to talk to servers. http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#senior-IETF-member-5 http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#spammers-are-stupid-3 http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#knows-SMTP-4 http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#knows-SMTP-5 http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-11 > Rather than get all users to change maybe it would be easier to get > server software to change. This transition can be done by making > server software that can do both protocols to maintain compatibility > but will use the new protocol if both sides are capable of talking at > that level. And spammers' incentive not to force a downgrade to SMTP will be... what? > I'm not sure what the specification of the new protocol should be but > it should at least be different than what email clients use so that > server to server communication isn't the same as client to server > communication. Perhaps server protocols can have more authentication > information that would protect them from being spoofed. And authentication will stop spam... how? > Thoughts? You're wasting your time. Regards, David.
