Jargons of Info Tech industry

[Mike Meyer]

Brendan Guild <dont at spam.me> writes:
>> 2. flipping to a sender pays system so that the Internet does not
>> subsidise spam.
>
> This is very promising. Our ISPs should put limits on how much email we 
> can send. The limits should be rather insane, nothing that any 
> nonspammer would ever come close to, but low enough to stop spam dead. 
> If we want to send more than that, we'd better be charged extra.
>
> We could make each mail server responsible for the spam that it sends 
> out. It seems that currently mail servers are swamped and spending big 
> money on handling the vast loads of spam that gets pumped into them 
> from other mail servers, so I'm sure they wouldn't mind having a rule 
> like: Refuse to allow email to be transported from any server that 
> spews more than 50% spam. Servers could be audited occasionally to 
> check if they are spammers.

Except that lots of spam doesn't *go* through the ISPs server. It's
running on some Windows zombie, and delivering mail directly to the
recipients server. It'll only go through the ownee's mail server if
the ISP blocks outbound SMTP connections.

> I don't know exactly how spammers send spam, but a rule like that would 
> sure stop ISPs from allowing any one person to send a thousand emails a 
> day.

And that would work if spammers needed an ISPs permissions to send
email. But they don't.

       <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.