Re: The introduction problem, was Thinking outside the box

On 20/03/2013 13:55, Martijn Grooten wrote:
> Given that your proposal would require significant changes to the 
> email infrastructure,

The 'proposal' (which isn't really such) would require HUGE changes to 
the email infrastructure.

But, it was in response to the message from Marc Perkel (17 March) saying:

"Let's pretend email as we know is going away and we are going to create 
an entirely new system from scratch. Nothing has to be compatible. How 
would we do it right?"

So, I wasn't worrying about backwards compatibility or anything.

-- 

My view is that we can't "do it right". Some people (including many on 
this list) want to do things the way they have always done them, but 
without the spam. So, any inconvenience (whether it's restricting how 
people send mail, or needing consent from the recipient, or restricting 
how MTAs talk, or needing to pay to send email, or whatever) is deemed 
unacceptable to those people. Thus we will continue to be deluged with 
spam, and email will eventually die because people get fed up and move 
to a proprietary closed system. If there is a widespread adoption of 
IPv6 for email, that will just hurry along its death.

In fact, most end users I speak to want rid of spam and will put up with 
inconvenience and cost if they can get rid of it (the fact that they pay 
commercial spam filter services, faithfully mark spam as such to try and 
help spam filters, and check quarantines etc shows this), but those 
aren't the people making the decisions.



-

Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53
-
This is the asrg mailing list.  To change your subscription settings, see
http://lists.services.net/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=lists.gurus.org