Re: Thinking outside the box

On Mar 17, 2013, at 7:45, Marc Perkel <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> On 3/17/2013 6:28 AM, Martijn Grooten wrote:
>>> Once you have secure private delivery of messages using
>>> public/private keys, you don't need to create a reputation system to
>>> decide what to deliver. Each recipient will have a personal contacts
>>> list and if the sender is not in that list the message won't be
>>> opened. This starts the new dream system with zero receipt of spam
>>> and therefore zero profit for spammers thus no spam. Every message
>>> can be received and delivered to the users messaging agent.
>> So that's kind of what sites like Facebook and Twitter already do with
>> direct messages: you can only send them to someone who has added you as
>> their friend or is following you.
>> 
>> It's true that would stop the bulk of the spam being sent.
>> 
>> It's also fairly trivial to build something like that on top of the
>> existing SMTP infrastructure.
>> 
>> It doesn't prevent spam sent via compromised accounts though.
>> 
>> It also kills a lot of the current uses of email, which depend on more
>> or less unsolicited emails being sent.
>> 
> You don't want to kill the ability of a stranger to contact you. If I'm a vendor and I want new customers to email me then the system needs to make sure that can happen.
> 
> I like this process - throwing out ideas just to see what sticks.


If you want a wide open receiver you can have it. If you can manage the bot generated traffic, that's fine. Otherwise you will quickly abandon that idea and put up a web portal.

The concept of a stranger in a digital credentials world will in itself be strange. It would be trivial to ask every potential contact for proof if identity. That everybody would be asking for such proof would probably grit against the desire for some level of anonymity in our public dealings. The people may decide through legislation that proof of identity must go through a state entity and can only be requested where a specific need is demonstrated. In it's place for most routine uses, the state would offer proof that the contact represents a unique individual to the entity requesting such proof or simple certifications such as age of majority or state of residence. 

-- Dan Oetting