[cap-talk] charging for spam. What are the implications

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

On 24/01/2007, at 6.52, Rob Meijer wrote:

>On Wed, January 24, 2007 01:21, Valerio Bellizzomi wrote:
>> I'm sorry, there are alredy better ideas on this topic, take a look at
>> http://mengwong.com/rssemail/reversals.png
>> or the papers at http://mengwong.com/rssemail/
>> There is also a talk online at
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-985396858578246176
>>
>> val
>>
>
>Most points there are valid, but the concept of sender based filtering is
>not as strong as the concept of using multiple sharable revocable
>unforgable e-mail adresses as target adress. If you are to do sender
>authentication
>in what way ever combined with sender based filtering, you still would
>only end up at the equivalent of ACL's. If you configure/patch the
>receiving mail server to not accept mail targeted at devbox at selnet.org,

Humm, I would have to get my ISP to patch his server...

>but to for example  decompose mail sent to
>key819f6d46104b2a7acacb47ad9fc92438.devbox at selnet.org and check
>819f6d46104b2a7acacb47ad9fc92438 against some whitelist in
>~devbox/whitelist.db and accept it based on its occurance then you would

It is a nice solution, but my current mail client doesn't do this.

>have a solution that is both more flexible (you are not a required party
in
>introductions) and free from the false negatives of sender based
>whitelisting.
>
>Rob
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cap-talk mailing list
>cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
>http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk