Re: Spam ... that discussion has been way to long. Hasn't it?

Michael S. Lorrey (
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 14:39:26 -0500 wrote:

> 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