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

David Sanchez wrote:

[i18n of challenges in C/R-enabled email protocol]
>Maybe I just speak english (not likely :-P ) and that smtp server only 
>chinese (but the intended recipient speaks 5 languages, for instance) 
>this will be a mess.
>
>How do you'll deal with that?

I may be repeating myself here, but:  Let the recipient configure how 
their receiving MTA states challenges.

I do acknowledge there may be corner cases where i18n makes things 
messier.  But it's not a showstopper.

[Output queues as an essential feature of email]
>I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one that things this way.

People who do think like you will get their own output queue.  But most 
users are indeed confused by what it does.  And, as has been pointed out 
before, many MUAs implement their own output queue already because mail 
hubs (mail injection servers) may be down.

>> >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.
>
>Well, bad example, but you can understand it, i think.
>
>I won't blackmail you

I believe that one. :-)
Let's see your definition of spam.  There is no use hypothesizing what 
email might look like unless we can argue, say, mathematically, that 
either of us may be right.

Oh, your definition (from mw) involves "bulk."  You said your example 
was spam by definition.  Notwithstanding whether it's criminal or not, 
how is it "bulk"?

>>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.
>
>You already know that blur is the frontier from ad-mail and spam.

What are you getting at?  BTW, advertisers often times issue coupons.  
That have cash value.  You, as a recipient, might have configured your 
email such that a sender would need to post a $5 bond to get through to 
you.  They may be an advertiser and they may be sending you $10's worth 
of a coupon.  If you aren't interested, they pay $5 for your attention.  
If you are and use their service, you get a $10 discount.

That's an instance of avoided spam.  Had your attention been worth more, 
you would have required senders to post more valuable bonds.

>> >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.
>
>How can you probe the obvious?
>
>Is hard :-)

Ask any mathematician.  Yes, obvious claims are often the hardest to 
prove, and some of them are even false.

>Send me $2 and i'll give you an explanation :-P

Sure thing.  Do you accept checks?  To what kind of address?  (See the 
lack of a protocol?)

>> >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.)
>
>Well, i won't blackmail you (nor anyone), i promise :-D
>
>I am just making my point clear

Which is, you are not going to pay for anything.  Well, chances are you 
could still use email, but you could not send to anyone whose time is 
worth, to them, more money than $0.  You could send to people who prefer 
to configure their MTA such that it prompts you to solve puzzles.  If 
you do that too often, though, they might feel inclined to reconfigure 
their MTAs.  :-P

>Pretty fine definition, i've another one
>
>Spam = Unsolicited Bulk Mail

Define "unsolicited."  Quantify "bulk."

>>Again, we are not talking about postage.
>
>Why not?

Postage == payment to postal service to have your mail delivered.
Posted bonds == potentially seizable money to recipient for their 
attention.

>e-mail was designed pretty much like snail-mail

And that's a shortcoming.  With snail mail, you need letterboxes, and a 
mailperson must come, either to you or to the letterbox, and they must 
pick stuff up, etc.

On the Internet, unless we're talking yesteryear's UUCP connections, you 
can approach anyone instantly.

Bounces are a good example:  With snail mail, if you misspelt the 
recipient's address, it was a good idea for you to receive your letter 
back.  After all, it might have contained something valuable to you.  
With email, it's ridiculous.

>> >> >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.
>
>IMHO, zombie windows sending spam and such kind of things will be
>drastically reduced.

Greylisting already achieves that.

>I said spam is unavoidable, if you want free (as in freedom) and whole 
>internet available mail. Just that.

Without a definition of spam that we are both comfortable with, any 
statement as to the avoidability of spam is useless.


--Joachim