Re: Isn't spam a ISP issue?

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Kurt M <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Someone talked about e-stamps; though generally not functional, there is a
> sideline of it. If we can get a couple of additions to the SMTP rfcs'. A
> standard block of mailing out more than X mails within an hour, anyone wanting
> to use a mail list simply has to pay their ISP money to get a escrow key to
> the bulk sender interface.

Sounds like a couple services we all knew in the not so distant past
Goodmail/BondedSender (original incarnation).  See how good that
worked, even with paying customers...

> 1. The senders get more public, easier to find, either through the ISP
> agreement or his own MTA's IP showing up.
> 2. The cost increases for bulk mailers, and that will stop a lot, the more you
> send the costlier.
> 3. ISP not following rules, allowing bulk mailers outside agreement, they get
> blocked, as some suggested.
> 4. If readily identifiable, spammers can be hit with legal actions or civil
> class action suits
> 5. No change in clients, no more lists to check, same SMTP protocol for 99% of
> us.

You are assuming that legitimate bulk mail is the biggest issue here
and not the various examples of; user accounts with stolen credentials
(ex: Ongoing Y! issues), the recent uptick in spam from compromised
web hosts, bots, malware, ISPs that don't/wont enforce AUPs, ISPs that
don't know any better (emerging markets).

-- 
~
Otto