Slashdot Mirror
.mail Domain To Eliminate Spam?
steve.m writes "The BBC are reporting on a new batch of top level domain names being submitted to ICANN for approval. By far the most interesting proposal is for a .mail TLD to register legitimate mail servers. Could this eventually be the end of spam ?" *yawn* The same old discussion, with no implementation in sight.
This article advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal
law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been
shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(x) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
(x) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
The Army reading list
that way email users are guaranteed that all spam will be filtered!
-- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
I might have missed something, but how would changing the TLD prevent spam?
.mail TLD be able to send mail to each other?
* I could still sign up for bogus accounts with www.hotmail.mail
* I can still have a poorly configured box that relays spam to www.myisp.mail
Changing the name will not fix this unless the roots of the problem are addressed, unless
it was intended that only servers with a
"That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - William Shakespeare
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
A huge amount (if not the majority) of spam comes from open relays and compromised machines which this silly idea doesn't address. A ground-up overhaul of the mail system (with authentication) is what's needed, not another level of bureaucratic nonsense.
Trolling is a art,
I have not been a fan of new TLDs for some time, as it seems to promote confusion. I consider it to be more inefficient to have companyname.info, companyname.com, companyname.net, companyname.org, companyname.mail, etc.... than to just have a simple single domain name (or the three majors, org net and com), with subdomains to break out the company functions (support, sales, mail, www, ftp). It seems much more confusing to me to have companyname.mail than mail.companyname.com, and besides that, why would we possibly want to justify the cost to register our domain under several TLDs, when .com has always been enough?
*yawn* The same old discussion, with no implementation in site.
Sorta like making an improved moderation system on slashdot instead of ping-ponging votes around?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Great, now you're forced to own two domain names to be able to host your own email server, one .mail for *gasp* your mail and one .*** for everything else. .ftp, .ssh and so on when you're at it.
Why not create
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
it will take some time, but it will eventually work.
#!/usr/bin/english
It's pretty light on details, but it seems that the two most logical applications are problematic:
1) When you register foo.{com,net,biz,org,*} you also got foo.mail as a bonus. But if one person rgisters foo.com and also gets foo.mail, what happens to the person who later registers foo.net.
2) As a possible solution to point 1, when you register foo.com you also get foo.com.mail. This just seems ugly.
Also, will it cost me another $15-$45/year to get the benefit of this new domian? What of people who choose to not porticipate?
I still fail to see what the problem is with just doing a reverse lookup on the domain's MX. It utilizes existing infrastructure and isn't as ugly as throwing in another TLD to the mix.
how about a .stupid for ideas like this? maybe even a .pointlessdiscussions or .useless? i'll be the first to sign up for .stupid and .useless. You'll be able to find my blog on them.
I also reply below your current threshold.
but not selling 30 or more domain names to each company makes much less money for the registrars..
the whole thing is driven by greed, and it is EXACTLY what the creators of the internet said would happen as soon as greedy asshats got their hands on it.
anyone want to start Internet 1.5? create a wrapper protocol to run a real internet on top of the current mess?
After reading this article and the one a few days ago about AOL and spam, I came up with this idea
I despise spam as much as most of you. My company is actually about to start a spam campaign against my recommendations. The day they start I will quit. Slashdot, here is my idea on blocking spam. What am I missing?
We all know what IP addresses belong to which countries. At work, we only deal with customers that carry professional certifications within the US. Of our client base, less than 1% of 1% of these customers and potential customers live outside the US or Canada. Therefore, I have blocked most networks outside of the US and Canada. The only exception is .mil. This has reduced my spam problem considerably. Add to this a Bayesian filter and my spam problem is essentially eliminated. This got me thinking...
ISPs should filter e-mail according to the user's requests. When you sign up for an account, by default, you can only receive e-mail originating/relaying from the US. Now, the user can go to their email configuration and pick which countries they wish to receive e-mail from. Most users only receive email from within the US and one or two other countries. If they only receive email from a few people outside the US, then just whitelist those address. If they want, Mexico, for instance opened, then let the user check the box next to allow e-mail from Mexico. Once this is setup, let the user decide if the e-mail failing to meet these conditions should be blocked or just moved to a separate folder for review. Another possibility is that if an e-mail originates from a blocked country and the spam filter thinks it's legitimate or just doesn't get a high spam score, send an NDR that says "Your e-mail looks like spam, but this could be a false positive. In order to deliver your email, please visit this site....." On that site, put one of the many methods to verify a human is actually visiting that site and then deal with the email accordingly.
For most users, the only noticeable impact would be less spam. This would also force spammers to send and/or relay from within the US. Now if they are operating from within the US, we have an IP address within the US's jurisdiction. Granted these may be zombie machines, so if your e-mail server does a reverse lookup before allowing e-mail, these would be denied. Also, we need to get ISPs to block most ports by default. If you want a port opened, you simply request it from your ISP. Add a clause like "by opening these ports, you are taking responsibility for any traffic on these ports. If we find your computer is sending viruses or spam or DOSing, then your service will be terminated." Again, most users would never notice a difference. Those that do notice can have the ports opened.
So now, for the average user, they would only receive e-mail originating or relaying from the US from a registered e-mail server. Now we can track this back to an ISP and shut down the account, seek legal action against the ISP for supporting spam, or black list that ISP. Since the spammer would have to have an MX record, you can get the registration info. This is probably bogus, so if we force registrars to verify the identity of the person, then we could actually track this back to a person. The spammer could probably falsify this too, but every step you add slows them down.
The spammer is going to now have to purchase an account with an ISP in the US and a registrar. Both of these entities should require a method of traceable payment. This means no cash. Now, we should have a means of finding who wrote the check or who the credit card belongs to. We now either have the spammer, the spammer's company (which should lead back to the spammer), or the spammer has now committed fraud. If he commits fraud, we now have the FBI after him and potential of longer jail sentences.
Not that I have to solicit criticism here on slashdot, but I'll ask anyways. What am I missing and why wouldn't this work?
If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
Ohh! TLDs! Lets see how much useless crap we can come up with!:
.spam - everything thats spam
.sex - all those pr0n sites
.troll - because you know they'll stay in their own domain
.h4x - let them h4x0r to themselves
.blog - now we can exclude these from searches!
.trek - for everything except Enterprise NX-01
.estaog - another great tld for your hosts file
.net - just give it to M$'s marketing team already
. - one step closer to having www./.
Yay! More TLDs! Thats just what we need. I cant wait to exclude all these new TLDs from my Google searches just to find that there's nothing left on the net but www.BringBackThePorn.com
Did I miss any?
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
Why not change so that SMTP servers ONLY accept connections over SSL? And then only accept certificates that are signed either by a central authority or by people whose certificates are signed by those people...
Then you could have a distributed revocation authority where people could send copies of spams (still over the SSL network to eliminate fake spam for DDoS purposes). You don't want to get your certificate revoked, so maintain your server!
This makes the system more or less secure, and puts the burden onto mail server admins. You want your regular users to be able to send mail? Then don't let random people send spam.
Individual servers could then implement whatever authentication they liked for their users to be able to send. Maybe a C/R system or authenticated logins. Whatever.
Muerte
ps. i keep posting this idea. ha!
although this might *seem* a good idea its not going to work. Good luck implementing this outside the united states. Most of the spammers forge email headers. would it be impossible to forge the email servers on your "soft whitelist"? Again the only real solution to spam is to stop buying from it. once the morons who support spammers financially stop the cash flow spam will stop. Again we still would have probles with worms sending spoofed emails.