On the spam problem...

Tex Texin wrote:
> It would also be nice to have the spam I receive, in various
> languages that I can't read, simply be rejected at the protocol
> level, but that can be dealt with in other ways.

Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
> Also, don't assume that "economic model" = "postage".  The attention
> bond mechanism is a very clever idea with the potential not only to
> fight spam but to enable entirely new models of transaction and
> exchange by email.  If you don't mind a little math, I'd recommend:

John W. Noerenberg II wrote:
> <flip-remark>
> Judging by the amount of spam I get each day, some artificial costs
> may not be such a bad thing.
> </flip-remark>

I fear that spam is such a problem today, that many of us are jumping to
the conclusion that spam will indeed exist in a next-generation
protocol, just as it exists today.  If we are successful in designing a
mail system that provides traceability, sender authentication, and other
protection mechanisms, will we even need to worry about spam?  Will spam
still exist as it does today?  Will we have an entirely new set of spam
related problems?  I believe this next generation mail system needs to
address the reasons that spam exists, not try to address the symptom of
those reasons being that it does exist and must be dealt with.

---
Dustin D. Trammell
Vulnerability Remediation Alchemist
Citadel Security Software, Inc.