Re: How has the spam problem changed in the past decade?

On Mon 18/Mar/2013 15:03:22 +0100 Dan Oetting wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon 18/Mar/2013 05:21:55 +0100 Dan Oetting wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bulk is most easily identified at the source.
>>> This is a problem because the other part (unsolicited or unwanted)
>>> is identified at the destination.
>> 
>> Define destination.  A recipient can certainly say that a message is
>> unwanted, but solicitations are not managed at the MX.
> 
> If you require a solution to identify every unsolicited email you
> aren't going to find a solution. But there are cases where the
> unsolicited status of received email is known and many more
> situations where a probably unsolicited status is known.

I agree, but a protocol leaves a lot to be desired if it causes a list
admin to have to say something like:

   If you think I'm lying, there's not much I can do about that.
                            [John's message of 2013-03-17 13:21]

Anyway, solicitation records, if any, are at the source as well, so
the corresponding variant of the definition is quite operational at
that side.