Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update

[David Presotto <presotto@closedmind.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1681 bytes --]

On Fri Sep 26 09:51:53 EDT 2003, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> Hey, that's not what I meant!  Or, yes, I _did_ consider it for my
> clients that can afford even (short) international calls, but I
> can dial an ISP and establish an SMTP connection with "sources"
> through it, surely?  Well, maybe not "sources", but whatever Bell
> Labs use as the incoming SMTP server?

You're right, sort of.  Their connectivity is really crappy with very
long delays.  They'ld have to stay connected for a very long time to
make sure of delivery after multiple retries.  Still too much of an
onus to assign them just so they can send mail to me.

On Fri Sep 26 09:53:48 EDT 2003, rog@vitanuova.com wrote:
> fundamental problem:
>
> i like the fact that people i haven't previously contacted on the net
> can email me (but not spammers!).
>
> i like the fact that i can send email out of the blue to someone on
> the net (but i'm not a spammer!).
>

This too is my problem.  If all the major SMTP servers were in the scheme
it would be less of one but still a problem.  Once we started including
enough servers to make the scheme useful to me, it would start letting
spam in.

>
> if everyone charged a small sum (e.g.  $.01) for each item of incoming
> mail from an address that's not on their whitelist, the spammers
> might find it hard going.
>

It's been proposed often.  One possible way to do it is to do something
computationally difficult to slow the home spammer down.  If it takes a
long time to send each message, it would stop being useful.  You could even
drop the requirement for servers you like so that it doesn't slow down all
communication.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3523 bytes --]

From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:46:01 +0200
Message-ID: <20030926154600.P19995@cackle.proxima.alt.za>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 09:33:11AM -0400, David Presotto wrote:
>
> My friends in china have dial ups.  The cost of a call to the US
> is prohibitive.  Having to change their configuration to call
> the US only for mail messages to me is just silly.
>
Hey, that's not what I meant!  Or, yes, I _did_ consider it for my
clients that can afford even (short) international calls, but I
can dial an ISP and establish an SMTP connection with "sources"
through it, surely?  Well, maybe not "sources", but whatever Bell
Labs use as the incoming SMTP server?

> If we're looking for a solution that only works for people on
> 9fans to talk to each other, then we don't have to think very
> hard.

That wasn't it, at all.  I'm just thinking that SMTP with a little
savvy and moderate security (I like to think of it as Certified
MTP, but I'm probably misusing the English language), will go a
long way and requires much greater social adjustment than technical
change.  The former is long overdue anyway.

Sorry if in my terseness I manage to be cryptic too.

++L