Internet and e-mail policy and practice including Notes on Internet E-mail

←2008→ Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own. RSS feed

Home :: Email 30 Jul 2008 Why we'll never replace SMTP Email An acquaintance asked whether there's been any progress in the oft-rumored project to come up with a more secure replacement for SMTP. Answer: no Truly, spam isn't a technical problem, it's a social one. If we could figure out some way to make mail recipient networks and hosts willing to shun known bad actors, even at the cost of losing some real mail for a while until the bad actors cave, it would make vastly more difference than any possible technical changes. No matter how super secure an improved protocol is, if a mail system operator lets people send spam through it, the recipients still have to decide how they're going to deal with the sender's behavior. The reason that e-mail is uniquely useful is that you can exchange mail with people you don't already know. The reason that spam exists is that you can exchange mail with people you don't already know. posted at: 05:49 :: permanent link to this entry :: 3 comments comments...        (Jump to the end to add your own comment) "The reason that e-mail is uniquely useful is that you can exchange mail with people you don't already know. The reason that spam exists is that you can exchange mail with people you don't already know." Well said. Flips sides of the same coin. (by Terry Zink 30 Jul 2008 12:55) That reminds me of something I've said about the web for years: The best thing about the web is that anyone can publish. The worst thing about the web is that anyone can publish. (by Kelson 02 Aug 2008 02:40) an acquaintance responds i read this several times before i realized what about it left me unsatisfied. you say: "If we could figure out some way to make mail recipient networks and hosts willing to shun known bad actors, even at the cost of losing some real mail for a while until the bad actors cave..." what, if we could arrange that, would prevent those bad actors from simply starting up again once that communal pressure is lifted? or would we be required to shun those bad actors, and sacrifice that percentage of good mail, forever? i'm not technically competent to discuss the feasibility of a useful replacement for SMTP, but while i agree that the problem of spam can be viewed as being rooted in "human nature," and is therefore a social one, i don't believe that there exists a social (or sociological) solution. a mail protocol built with the assumption that some humans are crooked, though (instead of SMTP, which is built on the assumption that all humans are basically decent and understand what Postel meant by "conservative,") would at least, hopefully, provide more robust mechanisms with which to detect and neuter the crookedness. (by adam brower 08 Aug 2008 00:44) Add your comment... Note: all comments require an email address to send a confirmation to verify that it was posted by a person and not a spambot. Your email won't be displayed unless you check the box below, and won't be used for other purposes.   Name: Email: you@wherever (required, for confirmation) Title: (optional) Comments: Show my Email address Save my Name and Email for next time

Topics Copyright Law - 8 Email - 120 ICANN - 56 My other sites Who is this guy? Airline ticket info Taughannock Networks Other blogs Spam resource (Al Iverson) The Spam Diaries (Ed Falk) Word to the Wise (Laura Atkins) Related sites IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group Network Abuse Clearinghouse Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

© 2005-2008 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages.