mstefan said:figuerres said:*snip*What I'd like to see is really a more stringent form of SPF, but rather than relying on DNS records, to use the mail servers themselves to validate the message. Basically, the recipient would contact the mail server who supposedly originated the message and ask "I received a message that was addressed from user-at-domain, did this message really originate from you? If so, then send me back a hash of the sender's email address and the message ID." Of course, that would impose some additional workload on the servers, but it would put a serious crimp in spoofing and the net reduction in spam would more than offset the increased traffic from the verification process.
Yes I think i see a good idea there.
it does go along with what i said that we need to test that the claim matches the truth.
also I would like to see the actual sender have to recive the traffic from delivery failure and from users telling them to stop filling thier inbox with stuff they do not want.
make the bulk sender pay more operating costs automaticly w/o the need for lawyers and courts.
the more it costs them to send the messages the less they will want to send mass emails w/o good demographics and sale per x messages sent rates.
it's one ting to send 100,000 messages and get 3 sales if the send only costs say 1K and you get paid for sending them not for the sales.
say you get paid 0.05 per delivery attempt then you make $4,000
but if the cost is say .25 then you have to raise the price or target the email so that you get a better return rate.
that should change the market to make junk mail less attractive to the companies that generate it.
