Re: [9fans] re: spam filtering fs

[Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>]

> > I've been thinking about this, and come to some conclusions.  First,
> > that one has to do whatever it is one decides to do within the context
> > of SMTP or ESMTP.  While importing a filesystem would be a nice,
> > elegant solution, it's just not realistic.
>
> I'm not willing to accept this. You are right, I have no argument with
> what you are saying, but I started out with 5-level baudot paper tapes and
> we're not using them any more, so the compatibility argument, while
> strong, can be trumped at some point by superior technology.

Hopefully, eventually, it *will* change.  When I say ``it's just not
realistic,'' I should qualify that a bit more.  ``It's just not
realistic on a large scale any time soon, where soon is defined within
the next five years.''  The thing that worries me is that ``at some
point'' statement; it took the world a while to get over its
fascination with paper tape.  What's more, I'm sure we've both seen
good technology get glossed over, never fledge, and ultimately fail.
Look at Betamax, for instance.

> I don't want these SPAM bastards putting one byte of data on my machine.
> That rules out any approach based on *SMTP.

Well, gosh, they're going to do that anyway even if you go the
filesystem route.  Tauth transactions, attaches, and reads and writes
from/to the auth file all transfer data.  Ultimately, this is probably
less than putting stuff in an SMTP transaction, but if you

> That said, you are correct that only *SMTP-based approach will have big
> impact in the 1-2 year time frame.

Yeah.  Sad but true.  Okay, now it's time to get working.  After
all, ``did we stand still when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?''[*]
Who's with me?

	- Dan C.


--
[*] For our non-US readers; that's a line from the movie, `Animal House,'
about college fraternities.  If you ever get a chance to see it, I
recommend it.