anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

Sun May 5 00:01:49 UTC 2002

On Sat, 4 May 2002 measl at mfn.org wrote:

> How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
> SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
> maximum number of recipients on any given email to some low number, say 5?
>
> A customer reaches the limit, the account auto-rejects all email for 24
> hours.
>
> Someone bitches?  Let them buy full rate dedicated services, with the first
> month, last month, and a security deposit up front before service is
> established.

The problem with this is how do you enforce this across thousands of mail
servers, controlled by many many different organizations?

I'm not saying the pay-per-message option is perfect.   In fact, the more
I think about a camram-type solution the more I like it: where the sender
proves to the recipient that they spent a fair bit of CPU time before
sending the message.

The bottom line is that in my opinion people need to give up *something*
for the privlege of sending mail.  I suggested a couple of cents per
message.  Others reject this as "it will destroy the net".  Camram
requires people to give up CPU cycles.  This might be an easier thing to
swallow.

Passing laws and putting on filters don't work.  Depending on each mail
server admin to do the right thing doesn't work.  We need to find
something else that will.

- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc at imach.com) AC7DE
---------------------------------------------------------------------- The
Innovation Machine Ltd.  P.O. Box 5749 http://www.imach.com/ Helena, MT
59604 Home of PacketFlux Technogies and BackupDNS.com (406)-442-6648
----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/