Subject: [Asrg] The Problem is No Sender Liability

From: Jacob Muñoz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:15 -0400

This is an angry little research group (understandably so), so I will be 
short.

The Problem is No Sender Liability.

The majority of spam's costs come in the form of storage, transport, and 
time a use spends deleting messages.  We all got that point.  Clearly 
the effectiveness of email as a communications medium is at stake due to 
swelling inboxes and wires choking on the huge bandwidth.

There are few options which are simple enough to be implemented widely 
among many people.  Stamps and keys are great if they are automated and 
you don't have many contacts, but this is yet another loop to jump 
through.  I believe the problem lies in the fact that Email was modeled 
after Physical mail.  A sender can package ANYthing he/she wants, drop 
it in a mailbox, and it suddenly becomes the recipient's problem. 
 Electronic systems should take advantage of human responses rather than 
force-fed inbox folders.

Computers can say no, mailboxes can't.

After the transaction of an Email, the sender can pretty much dissappear 
with no recourse.  My proposition is to modify SMTP to require OUTBOX 
penalty.  Instead of cramming your inbox full of thick-bodied messages, 
one would receive short headers with a title, encryption key, 
geographical sender info, and a URL TO DOWNLOAD!  The URL will point to 
the sender's specified outbox location and with the header's information 
- download & decrypt the message.  

What does this address:
stops unwanted transfers (no download without OK)
Guaranteed Delivery!!!  (you know exactly when, who, where)
Proof of sender's existance (URL must point to sender, or no mail to get)
Identity fraud (you go to them, they can't come to you)

What doesn't stop:
millions of headers (can people send as many headers as they want?)
... well that's not too bad either way.
So you still have to delete headers, at least they don't cost as much!

What is the penalty:
The sender must be up and running for mail to be retrieved.  
Compat....?  always with the compat.

Yes, that was short.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:26:58 -0700

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:15 -0400 
ISO  <ISO-8859-1> wrote:

> After the transaction of an Email, the sender can pretty much
> dissappear with no recourse.  My proposition is to modify SMTP to
> require OUTBOX penalty.  Instead of cramming your inbox full of
> thick-bodied messages, one would receive short headers with a title,
> encryption key, geographical sender info, and a URL TO DOWNLOAD!  The
> URL will point to the sender's specified outbox location and with the
> header's information - download & decrypt the message.

How do people with no direct Internet connectivity work then?

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:43:49 -0700

J,

>> t one would receive short headers with a title,

JCL> How do people with no direct Internet connectivity work then?

as well as reading on a Tumbleweed patent.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:50:40 -0400

At 4:59 PM -0400 4/22/03, Jacob Muñoz wrote:
>Instead of cramming your inbox full of thick-bodied messages, one 
>would receive short headers with a title, encryption key, 
>geographical sender info, and a URL TO DOWNLOAD!  The URL will point 
>to the sender's specified outbox location and with the header's 
>information - download & decrypt the message.

At 2:39 PM -0400 4/22/03, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>A number of people have suggested systems that make the request for 
>permission to speak so brief that it is impossible to send spam via 
>that mechanism.
>
>There are a couple problems with that.
>1. I'm not sure it's possible.  I've gotten spam that was nothing 
>but a URL in the subject.
>2. By decreasing the information passed, you make it far harder for 
>the recipient to figure out whether this is something you actually 
>want.  If you have to followup to the message (or go to a web site) 
>in order to figure out whether this is a valid request, then the 
>spammer has just won.  Their goal is to get you to pay 
>attention--and you just did.

-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg