Throw away the Internet and start over?
jbone at deepfile.com
Tue Apr 22 10:43:01 PDT 2003
On Tuesday, Apr 22, 2003, at 08:05 US/Central, Russell Turpin wrote:
> Jeff Bone:
>> I think you missed the point. Go re-read Paul's write up: it's a
>> substantial change from "fire-and-forget" to "notify me that I need
>> to come get something." .. Plus, it's a lot easier to filter / avoid
>> bogus structured metadata content in the notification .. than it is
>> to try to semantically classify the content itself, by which time
>> I've already received and stored it.
> I'm not too excited about this. (1)
Okay, look --- the primary intent of RESTmail is not in fact to fight
spam. (In fact it was entirely pedantic; much work needed to make it
viable.) There are lots of other reasons that one might want to go
from a "push it all, store-and-forward, routed" mechanism to "sender
pushes the headers, receiver pulls the body" mechanism --- and still
other reasons why having the underlying protocol be HTTP and each
message have a URI would be a good thing.
It *does* open the door to some different spam-fighting measures, as
mentioned. None of these are particularly compelling by themselves,
you probably do need white listing, etc. But if you get all wiggy
about Paul's little sketch because it doesn't tackle the whole
enchilada, you're missing the point and just being cantankerous.
And you're partially wrong about the economics of spam. Spam consumes
lots of resources along the way from sender to your mailbox. Now the
current mechanism does not make the spammer pay for those resources ---
RESTmail or similar at least moves the bar a little bit back towards
the spammer. And it would be a lot easier to shut down spammers under
that sort of scenario than it is today, IMHO.
More information about the FoRK