Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org

["J.A. Terranson" <measl () mfn org>]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 william () elan net wrote:


> 1. I want to create specification that would allow server operators
> themselve to decide what kind of verification they want, if you do not
> like callback, do not implement it.

Ultimately, only the system that is flexible in this regards will
succeed as a viable solution.


> 3. The processing is server cpu resource, while sending email is bandwidth
> used. I'll give up some more cpu resources to decrease used bandwidth.

The trick (and I steal this openly and completely from a recent
thread on Cypherpunks) is make mail delivery computationally difficult
- for the sender.  This of course assumes that we are throwing out the
fools gold of Hashcash itself.

Presenting a computationally difficult problem to a connecting MTA
moves the requirement for the CPU power to the sender while keeping
the recipient site unfettered.  Let's face it, the spam problem is
merely one of cost shifting from sender to reciever, and this
proposal shifts the load back.  Any site that wishes to maintain
the current system of email subsidies to the sender domain need
only provide a computationally simple token.


> 4. For last years cpu speed & hardware have been increasing at 2x per 2
> years and are more and more powerfull. Even if the initiative goes
> through fairly fast (I projected2 years, that is already too optimistic),
> it'll be another 4 years at least before its used, by that time servers
> would be 8 times faster!


Yet, all of this would not help the spam originating sites at all
because of the sheer volume of mail they must send in order to turn a
profit.


Yours,

J.A. Terranson