From sunder@brainlink.com Wed Feb 18 15:58:46 1998
Anonymous wrote:
I see discussion of spam here and everywhere on the net. But who finds it a *real* problem, and why?
Why are you asking the cypherpunks list?
There are nice technical solutions to this. If sendmail didn't transport things unauthenticated it could be done, but at a cost in CPU cycles on mail servers:
Have every sendmail server use a PK scheme to talk to every other server and authenticate the connection. Have every sendmail server accept mail only from those whose key is verified.
Nonsense. We (NANA) already know where spam comes from, and when we complain about it, they are terminated. # Date: Tue, 10 Feb PST 16:13:26 -0800 # Message-Id: <199802110013.QAA23854@blaze.corp.netcom.com> # Subject: Re: Commercial spam complaint # From: abuse@netcom.com (NETCOM Policy Management) # # Thank you for your report. This user's account has been terminated for # violations of NETCOM's Acceptable Use Guidelines. PK authentication would change nothing. Show a single spam with a forged IP address. PK authentication would only lead us down the road of everyone being tattooed with barcodes of our own making - and incredibly dumb idea. ---guy It would be like requiring a smart card for Internet access.