mark@unicorn.com wrote:
> hal@rain.org wrote:
> >Maybe it is time to see about creating an Internet Standard for ways
> >of expressing "postage" or other distinguishing features of non-spam
> >email.
>
> My main concern with Adam Back's scheme (the only one I've seen mentioned)
> is that it's purely a cost to the sender, there's no benefit to the
> recipient. Ideally it should be a transfer of value, but I can't think of
> too many calculations that the average person would care much about.
>
> But I think the idea of some kind of IETF standard is a good one, as it's
> a lever for getting such systems incorporated into email software.
>
Yes. Please. However, why can't mail servers that the recipient belongs to merely check the validity of the emails header addresses and origins of every message, bouncing the ones that look specious? I almost want to write a perl script that does just that....I wish I weren't so busy with my own ISP startup.
If the Electronic Freedom Foundation is what its cracked up to be, they could easily launch a campaign to get unverified message bouncers installed on any ISP mail server on which a customer requests it, and give the customer the ability to turn it on or off...
Mike Lorrey