[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       spamassassin-users
Subject:    Re: What changes would you make to stop spam? - United Nations
From:       "Steve Thomas" <lists () sthomas ! net>
Date:       2006-08-03 7:30:24
Message-ID: 4407.66.159.218.224.1154590224.squirrel () www ! sthomas ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

> Why use 2
> protocols when you can use one?

Oh I don't know. Maybe because the infrastructure for it is already in
place in the form of hundreds of thousands of existing mail servers that
already require authentication if the message being transmitted isn't
destined for a local user?

> There would have to be a POP SEND as well.

I see. So you're advocating the complete rewrite of two of the most widely
used protocols on the Internet, plus the addition of your "solution" to
the hundreds or thousands of perfectly good MUAs out there, and for what?
So end users don't have to click three or four times in their client while
setting up a new account?

You're just not getting it. Your idea is bad. Not just bad, but really,
really bad. Actually, it's worse than that. It's incredibly stupid. You
haven't provided one single advantage to be gained by implementing it,
other than end users not having to turn on SMTP AUTH. You're talking about
a complete overhaul of the global mail system with no discernable
advantage to be gained. Even if the UN (who shouldn't even be bothered
with something like this) were to praise your suggestion and recommend its
use, you wouldn't get anybody to implement it. It's a horrible, useless
idea.

Kudos for trying to come up with something revolutionary to address the
spam problem, but you failed miserably. Toss this one in the shredder and
try again. We'd all like to see a real solution to the problem, and if you
can come up with it, fantastic. This isn't it, though.

St-


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]