Re: CAPTCHA over smtp (yet another spam solution to discuss)

David Sanchez wrote:

>>Ah, mailing lists.  Nope, the mailing list would prompt you to solve 
>>the puzzle.  Or pay the money or whatever.
>
>Nope, i mean sending a mail with copy to 3 or 4 people.
>
>This is just impracticable.

Are you saying:  You would like to send out a message to 4 people, some 
of whom speak Chinese and will therefore ask you to solve a puzzle 
stated in Chinese, and others speak Italian and will therefore ask you 
to solve a puzzle states in Italian?

Plus, these folks didn't whitelist you to begin with?

Are you spamming them?

>>If you need an output queue, go get your own.  Don't force everyone 
>>(like SMTP does) to think in terms of there being an output queue all 
>>the time.
>
>If output queue is just an option, why don't just use a phone call or 
>IM?  :-P

Because I would need to hook up my modem to the phone in order to 
transmit, conveniently, arbitrary data.

Instant Messaging is just email in disguise.

>For me is a must, mail without delay delivering is not mail. Is just 
>another thing.

If that other thing serves everybody's purposes (but yours) just as well 
as email does, only without the spam, that'd be great.

>Yeah, i'll send you a blackmail (which is spam, by definition)

Would like to see that definition.  Blackmailing people is most likely 
to be criminal, though.

>and perfectly fill the Challenge offered by your MTA, and pay whatever 
>it costs.

What---you'd pay me $1M in order to convey threatening words to my 
computer screen?  Deal.

Seriously, as soon as the cost of sending any message (even a criminal 
one) to my virtual doorstep exceeds that of sending it, via express 
courier or in person, to my physical doorstep, the spam problem is 
pretty much solved.

>That's an example of unavoidable spam.

Your definition of spam might go something along the lines of, anything 
that doesn't make you happy.  Other people might want, for good reason, 
to read messages that don't make them happy.

>If you want whole internet availability you must deal with spam. Simple as 
>that.
>
>Moreover the idea of paying for sending is against current Internet 
>philosophy.

You may want to give evidence for these claims.

>I will just quit using, developing or maintaining a service in that 
>paying is a MUST. Simple as that.

Never sent old-style mail, using postage?  (To regurgitate, reimbursing 
recipients for their attention span is NOT postage.)

>Not likely to happen, thank god.
>
>Another example, i do have a lot of spam in my phisical mailbox, and 
>that traditionally had costs (stamps, the deliver guy, etc...). And 
>spam in your car front when parked. And all that had implied costs (a 
>lot more than electronic communications).

Advertisers advertise because it increases their revenue.  Nobody is 
banning the ads business.  Spam, by my definition, is the process of 
sending a person mail at an expense (to them) that exceeds the utility 
of that piece of mail.  A commercial on TV doesn't qualify because it 
pays for your TV show.  Spam in your physical mailbox exists precisely 
because (I'm pretty sure) it's free for me to put anything into it.

Again, we are not talking about postage.

>> >The solution of a lot of mail problems should pass adopting the 
>> >IM2000 proposal of being the sender who stores the mail.
>>
>>I think this reasoning has already been found to be flawed.  Hell, 
>>greylisting would be superior to IM2000 if it weren't for the need for 
>>senders' busy-waiting.
>
>Maybe it's true, but spam and other mail problems will be disminished.

Another claim you may want to give evidence for.

>If you want a universal, free access internet mail, spam is unavoidable

Oops; you just said that "whole Internet availability" already resulted 
in spam.  Now you are adding "free access" to the equation.  So, do you 
agree that availability across the whole Internet is *not* a problem?  
(If so, we can work on "free access" not being a problem, either.)


--Joachim