Re: [OT] Yahoo's Antispam proposal
On Friday 21 May 2004 03:38, Tim Connors wrote:
[...]
> So spammers will simply write their own pgp signatures.
>
> After all, PGP only tells you that the person who signed the
> message was the one who wrote it. Unfortunately, PGP doesn't come
> with an evil-bit.
>
> Reemember, anything the anti-spam community can do, the spammers
> can do as well. We are very much fighting a losing battle, and only
> buy (with lots of effort if you want to change the way email works)
> small amounts of time.
[...]
Without wanting to start another war about spam here, I'd just like to
say that I think you are missing the point of SPF - or Yahoo's
offering. They are primarily aimed at verifying mail doesn't have
forged headers. Certainly over 95% of the thousands I receive
monthly have forged headers. Also the bulk of the virus/worm spew
has forged headers. If spammers used verifyable send addresses,
complaints would be simple.
I see no reason why people shouldn't buy dodgy pharmaceuticals if they
want to. I myself would opt into some sectors of advertising email
if any opt-in system became practical (not pharmaceutical supplies,
though). But no opt-in or filtering system is workable while most
emails are unreplyable because the headers are forged. Eliminate
that problem, and the remaining question of spam control becomes more
manageable by a range of measures. And remember that prohibition
always creates a black market. The prefered solution has to be more
permissive. Which means "let those who want do it, as long as I
don't have to be inconvenienced".
I do agree with you about education, though. People should learn
_never_ to buy from someone whose reply email address is suspect --
never even to click on a link, never even to open the mail. If we
all did that the flow would dry up. Of course, that is what SPF
would do for us automatically.
--
richard
Reply to: