Re: Feedback on Hypertext Mail Protocol (a.k.a. Stub Email)

Greg Hewgill <[email protected]> writes:

> Spammers will find a way around this. For example, they could install
> an arbitrary number of IM2000 message stores on zombie Windows
> machines, and point junk domain names at them. Or, they could set up an
> IM2000 server that stores a single copy of their message for all 50
> million recipients. IM2000 shifts the burden of message storage to the
> sender, but the sender can quite easily delegate this further to other
> unsuspecting victims.

But it means that I as the 'internet geek' can kill off a thousand zombie
servers before 'gullible grandma spam-target' can retrieve the spam messages
for which she's been sent a zillion notifications.  
(Plus many ISPs block incoming and outgoing port 25 for anti-zombie purposes.)

Right now, the system itself bears the cost of sending.
Any unsecured inlet means an ISP stores spam on their server, even when the
zombies are shutdown.
If the zombies had to be online to send spam, then forcing them to change
address or whatever would have the same effect in the end.
Gullible Grandma wouldn't receive the spam message, and would not send money to
the spammer.

Q. So what if the spam is in the subject field only?
A. Clients should not display unretrievable messages unless asked.
   It'll probably be a spam anyway.

The point is that IM2000 and other pull systems provide accountability.
-- 
I've tried to teach people autodidactism,                | ScannedInAvian.com
but it seems they always have to learn it for themselves.| Shae Matijs Erisson