[Gllug] A few words on the topic of stock spam

[Peter Childs]

On 15/07/07, Ian Norton-Badrul <bredroll at darkspace.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:52:35PM +0100, Fred Youhanaie wrote:
> > > Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> > > > May be of interest to some, mostly won't be of interest to anyone.
> > > >
> > > > http://blog.hinterlands.org/2007/07/10#20070710
> > >
> > > Perhaps this can act as a deterrent:
> > >
> > > http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/07/10/stock_spam_charges/
> >
> > The deterrent is that sending spam should be illegal.
> >
> > We don't allow advertisers to spray-paint their message on every
> > available wall.  There are laws specifically to prevent this, and
> > anyone who persistently flouted them would eventually end up in
> > prison.
> >
> > Why then can we not have similar laws for spam?
>
> I Think partly this is because it is so easy to spoof a sender, a nasty
> third
> party can easily send spam adverts. If made illegal then you still could
> not
> prosicute the offender.
>
>
This has come up a number of times before (in numerous circles), We need a
complete rewrite of SMTP, POP3, IMAP etc to enable tracing (sender id),
security (encrtption etc), binary attachments (without the overhead of
base64 encoding) plus a list of other things.

Loads of people have discused this matter and nobody has yet come up with a
workable spec and implementation.

The truth is the protocols used for EMails currently are not fit for the
current purpose.

Some of the Instant Messaging Protocols may be a good place to work from
however.

Peter Childs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20070715/832113a2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug