Re: Inexpensive anti-spamware/anti-verminware tactic

JCB> Surely if only a few "enlightened individuals" use im2000, [...]

JdeBP> From following the news coverage second-hand, I speculate 
JdeBP> that if an ISP were to come out with IM2000 this year, 
JdeBP> popular sentiment is such that it will be overwhelmed - 
JdeBP> not with mail but with customers.  (-:

JCB> Hard to say.  ISP's might be more interested in SPF, for 
JCB> various reasons, some of them probably short-sighted.

ISP's might be.  SPF gives them customer lock-in.  Nonetheless, 
I did write "customers", not "ISPs".

JCB> Meanwhile, those enlightened individuals could get a pretty 
JCB> big bang for the buck by simply switching to Any Protocol Other 
JCB> Than SMTP in order to communicate with each other.  That is 
JCB> basically why I posted originally: to explore *that* as the 
JCB> germ of an idea to combat UBM.

<URL:http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/contacting-the-author.html#Fidonet>

JCB> But ISPs *could* offer something like that today, without 
JCB> IM2000, via SMTP.  

No, they couldn't.  Another IM2000 marketing slogan, remember, is 
"Infinite Inbox quotas!".

JCB> [...] given the relative popularity of the two technologies, 
JCB> it'd be a *more* reliable way to continue receiving and 
JCB> sending email while maintaining those promises.

For the sort of people who are affected by Inbox sizes in the
first place, SMTP is hardly reliable now.

JCB> (After all, ISP's can hardly promise anything *useful* 
JCB> regarding IM2000 in-box sizes unless their users also 
JCB> promise to not sign up to receive in-bound *SMTP* 
JCB> email...correct?  

No.  What makes you think that signing up to receive mail via SMTP
Relay affects IM2000 Inbox sizes one whit ?

Customers choosing not to sign up for old-style SMTP recipient 
service is something that ISPs will like and encourage, because it
means that they can just switch SMTP Relay service over to Snubby 
The Mail Rejector, and re-use all of the hard discs that were 
holding their mail queues and recipient mailboxes for IM2000 
message stores.  But it has no bearing on whether ISPs can offer
IM2000 recipient services to customers.

JCB> the whole concept of SMTP email presently requires bounces...but
JCB> it doesn't *have* to in future incarnations, which might be 
JCB> more easily transitioned to than would be IM2000.

No, they wouldn't.  If one has given up the basic "store and forward"
nature of SMTP-based Internet mail, then it is almost certainly going
to be as easy if not easier to move to IM2000 than it would be to move
to such a hypothetical architecture.

But again, you are buying into the notion that there will be such
a future incarnation of SMTP.