What a bunch of morons. Sure, maybe with enough computing power you can detect a copyrighted work...maybe. But so what? Who's going to download P2P software, or use a network with this type of filtering in place? Only people who wouldn't have stolen stuff in the first place.
Besides, P2P users will just scramble the content in some ridiculously simple way that will invalidate the filters and they'll have to go back to square one. Ig-pay atin-lay anyone?
Newer DVDs have enhanced region coding (RCE) on top of the original region encoding. If you had previously "hacked" your DVD player as a region-less (or region 0) player, it would have played any DVD, from any region, if it had only the original region coding. But with RCE, the DVD has an extra protection that will not allow it to play unless the region code matches exactly. You have to set the DVD player for the specific region (as you did). RCE was aimed at people who buy region-less players, because it obviously is only a minor annoyance to people with hacked DVD players.
Please stop using the "the musicians/actors/RIAA/MPAA make so much money they can afford to be stolen from" defense. It's utterly ridiculous. There are plenty of legitimate arguments against the RIAA, MPAA, DCMA, et al. It's not your place (or mine) to decide whether someone who has legal rights is rich enough for your poor, pitiful soul to violate them. That is plain and simple communism, where everyone gets the same amount, no matter how hard they work, or based on any other factors (luck, demand, etc.). In case you hadn't noticed, such a system doesn't work. I for one would rather live in capitalism (although not quite pure, to avoid being actually abused by big money--middle ground is usually more reasonable), even when there are individuals without talent who hit the big time, because I always have a shot at working hard and getting ahead. In a communist state, there is no big time...hard work, luck or anything.
The whole argument smacks of jealousy, and detracts from the legitimacy of the loss of rights we actually do have being taken away. And remember that there are people on skid row who think YOU make too much and breaking into your fancy home and relieving you of your TV or computer so they can put food on their table is justifiable.
If you'll notice, nowhere in America are there two analog stations on adjacent (3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10, etc.) channels. The interference was too great, and it was against FCC rules to do so. So you couldn't fill in the VHF channels with the UHF channels, because there are not 12 channels. There are only 7 available.
Digital signals are different, so this rule no longer applies.
Once in a while try to examine the big picture. Pure capitalism is just as pie-in-the-sky as pure communism (which degrades to socialism). There are cases, where it is necessary for the government to mandate a change that would not take place with just market push. This is most definitely the case:
- The TV stations/networks gain absolutely nothing by switching to digital. They have to upgrade everything from cameras to antennas, for no net gain in viewership. - Even if the upgrade cost was $0, with no digital TVs on the market, no one would be able to see the effort. - TV manufacturers will not make digital TVs with no content to view. - Even if TV manufacturers made digital TVs, consumers wouldn't buy them with no content to view.
While you may not agree that digital, over-the-air TV is a good thing. I assume you'd agree that it would not occur on its own.
BTW, try to find a 13 inch TV with a digital tuner today, in spite of the fact that most major cities have all major networks available digitally, just as an example of how effective letting the market dictate can be. And some more examples: quadrophonic FM, stereo AM, digital radio, etc.
The biggest irony of the whole thing is that TV manufacturers are the last ones dragging their feet, but they have the most to gain. There are plenty of TVs out there that would not be replaced if there were no digital transition. Instead, the TV manufacturers get to ride the wave of obsolescence and sell TVs to people who otherwise wouldn't have bought them! And we have to twist their collective arms to get them to make money!
It is illegal to "Initiate any telephone call to any residential line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party...."
Add to that that the call was made to a cell phone:
"No person or entity may...Initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,...To any telephone number assigned to a...cellular telephone service,...or any service for which the called party is charged for the call."
The penalty varies, but it is generally $500, unless the telemarketer is judged to be in willful violation (aren't they all?), in which case the penalty triples.
Using this method, the individual is tracked down in a way similar to finger-print comparisons or even witness/mugshot comparisons. The only difference is how much more information is in a DNA sample than in a picture or fingerprint. But I think if the suspect's sample can be analyzed into a unique code that can be sent to the DoD, which they then compare to their database, then there is no privacy breach for the remainder of the database. Sure, there would be some verification after a match, but I don't see how this would be objectionable.
This and a host of other sites you can find at Google will tell you that VHS has about 240 lines of horizontal resolution. This metric indicates how many alternating black and white lines can be seen on a line the same width as the screen height. Since NTSC is 4:3, this means that 240 lines of horizontal resolution indicates about 320 (240 * 4/3) black and white lines could be visible across the whole screen. DVD's have a digital resolution of 720 horizontal pixels. If the pixels are made to alternate between black and white, then 720 lines can be displayed on a DVD.
By definition, VHS cannot handle this resolution, so if that is the main criteria of your comparison, there is no question that DVD is superior to VHS.
Xesdeeni
Re:always room for more competition.
on
New Linux PVR Box
·
· Score: 1
Technically, s-video is between composite and component. S-video provides the luminance by itself, but the two color components are mixed:
I am certainly not trying to defend anyone illegally trading or selling copyrighted material. However, I question the evidentiary numbers provided by the MPAA and RIAA concerning the cost to the music, software, and film industries.
Certainly, when someone steals a piece of hardware (say a TV), they are taking away the ability of the owner to make money by selling the hardware to someone else. Less obvious is the fact that the thief won't be in the market for a legitimate purchase of the product either.
But these soft products are different. When someone illegally obtains one of these products, they are only costing the seller the price the thief would have paid.
Now, if someone could wave a magic wand and make it impossible to illegally copy any copyrighted material (and deleting all items already obtained illegally), is it reasonable to expect that every person who has illegally obtained a copy would buy a legitimate copy? I think the answer is obviously "No." Certainly some would. But citing the number of illegally obtained soft products and multiplying by the retail cost is not indicative of the actual damages. Even half that number is probably wishful thinking.
Where is a realistic approximation? And what about the positive aspects, such as concert sales for bands sampled via P2P networks; software that becomes much more widely known than it would have been, resulting in purchases at companies or of upgrades; or theater camcorder recordings that generate more interest at the box office and in DVD sales later? And what about the criminalization of fair use that gets lumped into the term "piracy?"
How can any legitimate attempt to generate support for enforcement of genuine encroachment on copyright holder's rights completely ignore extremely relavent issues like these?
All the more reason for verification that an e-mail actually did originate from the address specified. I think half the solution is in this proposal, but I think the other half is validation of the sending address as follows:
1. The sending server would generate a CONTENT KEY based on the contents of a specific message, including the subject, date, from, to, and CC fields, as well as the body. The algorithm to generate this key would be public in nature. 2. A PRIVATE KEY would be used in conjunction with the CONTENT KEY to generate a VERIFICATION KEY. 3. The VERIFICATION KEY would be added to the e-mail, which would then be sent. 4. The receiving server would use the same algorithm above to generate another CONTENT KEY for the received message. 5. The CONTENT KEY plus the VERIFICATION KEY would be sent to the sending server for verification. 6. The sending server would use its PRIVATE KEY with the CONTENT KEY from the receiving server and compare the results to the VERIFICATION KEY.
A. If the receiving server was not updated with the verification capability, it would pass the message through as is done today, for backwards compatibility. B. If the sending server was not updated, the VERIFICATION KEY would obviously not be present, and the receiving server would pass the message through as is done today, for backwards compatibility (note that the number of non-updated servers will diminish over time, eventually leaving only "spoofable" servers, which could easily be blocked in a more manageable way via the RBL). C. If the sending server indicates that the message is verified, the message passes through. D. If the sending server indicates that the message is NOT verified, the message is BOUNCED (I think it is important to actually bounce the message in order to generate additional traffic at the sending server and further encourage open relays to be updated, and to discourage protected e-mail addresses from being added to further SPAM address lists).
Other than uncompressed HDTV (1928x1080@29.97, 4:2:2 = 124MB/s), what applications need higher than 133MB/sec? Are 3-D cards really limited by the PCI/AGP bus today? Certainly it would be nice (and reduce video card cost) to move all that on-board 3-D memory to the motherboard, but is that really a compelling enough reason all by itself?
I'm not saying that there aren't lots of uses for a faster bus, but changing to PCI was painful (Remember EISA/VESA Local FUD? Remember motherboards with four slots, not all of which actually worked? etc.) and the next change will be equally difficult. So, how many of the reasonable applications are really mainstream enough for all PCs to go through the process?
Thanks for the defense, but I was kinda enjoying my first post labelled as a "Troll":).
So that's how Google ranks its pages. I didn't realize they tracked the number of links. I didn't really think about it long, but I figured they just used how many times the query string appeared, maybe the age of the page, or whatever.
I wonder if this data would be hugely different from the number of visits a page receives, considering easily typed-in page addresses (fewer links needed), or the possibility that a single link is followed many times, while another is almost never followed.
What you describe is called LINEAR editing. That's where you have to fast forward and rewind through the tape--a.k.a. linear access. Non-linear access requires the ability to randomly access the video. Yes, cut up film can be thought of as non-linear, but unless you cut up the video tape, it's linear.
VCDs are 352x240 (non-interlaced), so you are not getting the same quality as your input VHS tape (this post has more details). DVD is a better choice.
Doesn't the DMCA prohibit a company from investigating a violation of their IP if the violation exists on the other side of encryption?
For example, if company M utilized a software algorithm (putting aside the argument about software patents for the moment) inside an encrypted data stream (audio file, video file, etc.) that was actually patented by company A, wouldn't it be a violation of the DMCA for company A to investigate this violation of their patent rights? And wouldn't any evidence they uncovered in violation of the DMCA be inadmissible if they tried to enforce their patent rights against company M?
Do I completely misunderstand the scope of the DMCA, or would it have actually prohibited the actions of clone manufacturers, starting with Compaq, when they reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS in 1984?
It seems this simple fact alone would highlight the ludicrous nature of a law which would prohibit precisely the actions that provided the current state of the industry.
At some point, either Peppercoin or the online merchant must charge the credit cards of each customer. Say the product is $1 a piece.
* If Peppercoin does this for each customer, they have the same problem as the merchants had before: the transaction fee will destroy their profits.
* If the online merchant charges the $10 to only one customer, there are going to be some pretty upset people. 9 people get it for free, and one pays $10?
Unless there is some way to combine these 10 transactions into one, including 10 credit card charges, this makes absolutely no sense.
OTOH, maybe it WILL work. It's a purchasing lottery! "Got stuck with the $10 bill that time?" Play again! You in?:-)
Since this has already scrolled off the first, page, I don't know if you will still see this response. Your e-mail isn't listed but if you do see this and would be willing to continue this dialog, please e-mail me directly at "Xesdeeni2001 over at yahoo dot com." I don't quite understand all of what you say above, so I have many questions. You seem to know plenty about the details of e-mail, and if you would be so kind as to help educate me on how it actually works, maybe I can also understand why you have your doubts.
I don't see why the e-mail clients need to do the work. Without a server, there is no connection to the network, so they are the conduit. Validation can and should be done there, so that the modifications only need to be done to this more limited set of devices.
It's useless to try to do this between servers, as the servers can't verify if someone sent an email or not.
Why do you say this? The servers must know if an e-mail address or a bounce address exists in order to deliver the e-mail to the recipient. So a request of the server responsible for receiving e-mail to a given address can provide the verification that is was indeed sent. A forged e-mail address will not be recognized by any server, so it will flag an e-mail as SPAM.
As with any "new" idea, it's just bits and pieces of others:-)
But I don't want a one-off solution, just for me, especially if it requires anyone who wants to send me e-mail to comply. This should work for everyone, and should be completely invisible to all. Then at least you'll KNOW who sent you the SPAM and you can act accordingly.
You look like someone who may understand the details. I don't understand everything you did above, but I think that was the first pass on this idea.
But the problem is that an e-mail can just spoof a real return address. Then the validation will say "yup, that's one of my e-mail addresses," and the SPAM will go right through. That's why I came up with the key process. This way, the validation can say "yup, that's one of my e-mail addresses, and yup, that's an e-mail that came from me."
First, for complete backwards compatibility, if there is no key included in the e-mail, no filtering is done at all, so your e-mail would get through as it does today. Initially this also means no effect on SPAM. But this is a long-term solution, and would take a year or so (with complete cooperation) to roll out. It will take some time for all the servers to be updated with this capability. But eventually the only servers left sending e-mail without this key (and accompanying verification ability) will be able to be spoofed. And at that point, simple bounces can be generated for e-mail without a key to convince the few holdouts to update their servers.
As I understand it, the "From" field and "Reply-to" fields don't have to be the same. So as long as your server honors validation requests from a certain e-mail address, it still can refuse incoming mail.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see this pattern on the new $20. Is it there?
Xesdeeni
What a bunch of morons. Sure, maybe with enough computing power you can detect a copyrighted work...maybe. But so what? Who's going to download P2P software, or use a network with this type of filtering in place? Only people who wouldn't have stolen stuff in the first place.
Besides, P2P users will just scramble the content in some ridiculously simple way that will invalidate the filters and they'll have to go back to square one. Ig-pay atin-lay anyone?
Xesdeeni
Newer DVDs have enhanced region coding (RCE) on top of the original region encoding. If you had previously "hacked" your DVD player as a region-less (or region 0) player, it would have played any DVD, from any region, if it had only the original region coding. But with RCE, the DVD has an extra protection that will not allow it to play unless the region code matches exactly. You have to set the DVD player for the specific region (as you did). RCE was aimed at people who buy region-less players, because it obviously is only a minor annoyance to people with hacked DVD players.
Xesdeeni
Please stop using the "the musicians/actors/RIAA/MPAA make so much money they can afford to be stolen from" defense. It's utterly ridiculous. There are plenty of legitimate arguments against the RIAA, MPAA, DCMA, et al. It's not your place (or mine) to decide whether someone who has legal rights is rich enough for your poor, pitiful soul to violate them. That is plain and simple communism, where everyone gets the same amount, no matter how hard they work, or based on any other factors (luck, demand, etc.). In case you hadn't noticed, such a system doesn't work. I for one would rather live in capitalism (although not quite pure, to avoid being actually abused by big money--middle ground is usually more reasonable), even when there are individuals without talent who hit the big time, because I always have a shot at working hard and getting ahead. In a communist state, there is no big time...hard work, luck or anything.
The whole argument smacks of jealousy, and detracts from the legitimacy of the loss of rights we actually do have being taken away. And remember that there are people on skid row who think YOU make too much and breaking into your fancy home and relieving you of your TV or computer so they can put food on their table is justifiable.
Xesdeeni
If you'll notice, nowhere in America are there two analog stations on adjacent (3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10, etc.) channels. The interference was too great, and it was against FCC rules to do so. So you couldn't fill in the VHF channels with the UHF channels, because there are not 12 channels. There are only 7 available.
Digital signals are different, so this rule no longer applies.
Once in a while try to examine the big picture. Pure capitalism is just as pie-in-the-sky as pure communism (which degrades to socialism). There are cases, where it is necessary for the government to mandate a change that would not take place with just market push. This is most definitely the case:
- The TV stations/networks gain absolutely nothing by switching to digital. They have to upgrade everything from cameras to antennas, for no net gain in viewership.
- Even if the upgrade cost was $0, with no digital TVs on the market, no one would be able to see the effort.
- TV manufacturers will not make digital TVs with no content to view.
- Even if TV manufacturers made digital TVs, consumers wouldn't buy them with no content to view.
While you may not agree that digital, over-the-air TV is a good thing. I assume you'd agree that it would not occur on its own.
BTW, try to find a 13 inch TV with a digital tuner today, in spite of the fact that most major cities have all major networks available digitally, just as an example of how effective letting the market dictate can be. And some more examples: quadrophonic FM, stereo AM, digital radio, etc.
The biggest irony of the whole thing is that TV manufacturers are the last ones dragging their feet, but they have the most to gain. There are plenty of TVs out there that would not be replaced if there were no digital transition. Instead, the TV manufacturers get to ride the wave of obsolescence and sell TVs to people who otherwise wouldn't have bought them! And we have to twist their collective arms to get them to make money!
Xesdeeni
I don't think most people realize that those recorded ads are already against federal law. According to the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: RESTRICTIONS ON TELEMARKETING AND TELEPHONE SOLICITATION:
It is illegal to "Initiate any telephone call to any residential line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party...."
Add to that that the call was made to a cell phone:
"No person or entity may...Initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,...To any telephone number assigned to a...cellular telephone service,...or any service for which the called party is charged for the call."
The penalty varies, but it is generally $500, unless the telemarketer is judged to be in willful violation (aren't they all?), in which case the penalty triples.
Xesdeeni
Using this method, the individual is tracked down in a way similar to finger-print comparisons or even witness/mugshot comparisons. The only difference is how much more information is in a DNA sample than in a picture or fingerprint. But I think if the suspect's sample can be analyzed into a unique code that can be sent to the DoD, which they then compare to their database, then there is no privacy breach for the remainder of the database. Sure, there would be some verification after a match, but I don't see how this would be objectionable.
Xesdeeni
This and a host of other sites you can find at Google will tell you that VHS has about 240 lines of horizontal resolution. This metric indicates how many alternating black and white lines can be seen on a line the same width as the screen height. Since NTSC is 4:3, this means that 240 lines of horizontal resolution indicates about 320 (240 * 4/3) black and white lines could be visible across the whole screen. DVD's have a digital resolution of 720 horizontal pixels. If the pixels are made to alternate between black and white, then 720 lines can be displayed on a DVD.
By definition, VHS cannot handle this resolution, so if that is the main criteria of your comparison, there is no question that DVD is superior to VHS.
Xesdeeni
Technically, s-video is between composite and component. S-video provides the luminance by itself, but the two color components are mixed:
Composite: 1-wire
S-video: 2-wire
Component: 3-wire
SDI is a serial digital interface, that provides a digital version of component.
Xesdeeni
I am certainly not trying to defend anyone illegally trading or selling copyrighted material. However, I question the evidentiary numbers provided by the MPAA and RIAA concerning the cost to the music, software, and film industries.
Certainly, when someone steals a piece of hardware (say a TV), they are taking away the ability of the owner to make money by selling the hardware to someone else. Less obvious is the fact that the thief won't be in the market for a legitimate purchase of the product either.
But these soft products are different. When someone illegally obtains one of these products, they are only costing the seller the price the thief would have paid.
Now, if someone could wave a magic wand and make it impossible to illegally copy any copyrighted material (and deleting all items already obtained illegally), is it reasonable to expect that every person who has illegally obtained a copy would buy a legitimate copy? I think the answer is obviously "No." Certainly some would. But citing the number of illegally obtained soft products and multiplying by the retail cost is not indicative of the actual damages. Even half that number is probably wishful thinking.
Where is a realistic approximation? And what about the positive aspects, such as concert sales for bands sampled via P2P networks; software that becomes much more widely known than it would have been, resulting in purchases at companies or of upgrades; or theater camcorder recordings that generate more interest at the box office and in DVD sales later? And what about the criminalization of fair use that gets lumped into the term "piracy?"
How can any legitimate attempt to generate support for enforcement of genuine encroachment on copyright holder's rights completely ignore extremely relavent issues like these?
Xesdeeni
All the more reason for verification that an e-mail actually did originate from the address specified. I think half the solution is in this proposal, but I think the other half is validation of the sending address as follows:
1. The sending server would generate a CONTENT KEY based on the contents of a specific message, including the subject, date, from, to, and CC fields, as well as the body. The algorithm to generate this key would be public in nature.
2. A PRIVATE KEY would be used in conjunction with the CONTENT KEY to generate a VERIFICATION KEY.
3. The VERIFICATION KEY would be added to the e-mail, which would then be sent.
4. The receiving server would use the same algorithm above to generate another CONTENT KEY for the received message.
5. The CONTENT KEY plus the VERIFICATION KEY would be sent to the sending server for verification.
6. The sending server would use its PRIVATE KEY with the CONTENT KEY from the receiving server and compare the results to the VERIFICATION KEY.
A. If the receiving server was not updated with the verification capability, it would pass the message through as is done today, for backwards compatibility.
B. If the sending server was not updated, the VERIFICATION KEY would obviously not be present, and the receiving server would pass the message through as is done today, for backwards compatibility (note that the number of non-updated servers will diminish over time, eventually leaving only "spoofable" servers, which could easily be blocked in a more manageable way via the RBL).
C. If the sending server indicates that the message is verified, the message passes through.
D. If the sending server indicates that the message is NOT verified, the message is BOUNCED (I think it is important to actually bounce the message in order to generate additional traffic at the sending server and further encourage open relays to be updated, and to discourage protected e-mail addresses from being added to further SPAM address lists).
Xesdeeni
Other than uncompressed HDTV (1928x1080@29.97, 4:2:2 = 124MB/s), what applications need higher than 133MB/sec? Are 3-D cards really limited by the PCI/AGP bus today? Certainly it would be nice (and reduce video card cost) to move all that on-board 3-D memory to the motherboard, but is that really a compelling enough reason all by itself?
I'm not saying that there aren't lots of uses for a faster bus, but changing to PCI was painful (Remember EISA/VESA Local FUD? Remember motherboards with four slots, not all of which actually worked? etc.) and the next change will be equally difficult. So, how many of the reasonable applications are really mainstream enough for all PCs to go through the process?
Xesdeeni
Thanks for the defense, but I was kinda enjoying my first post labelled as a "Troll" :).
So that's how Google ranks its pages. I didn't realize they tracked the number of links. I didn't really think about it long, but I figured they just used how many times the query string appeared, maybe the age of the page, or whatever.
I wonder if this data would be hugely different from the number of visits a page receives, considering easily typed-in page addresses (fewer links needed), or the possibility that a single link is followed many times, while another is almost never followed.
Anyway, thanks to AC for the info.
Xesdeeni
What's Page Rank? Does this indicate how often my page is visited?
Xesdeeni
What you describe is called LINEAR editing. That's where you have to fast forward and rewind through the tape--a.k.a. linear access. Non-linear access requires the ability to randomly access the video. Yes, cut up film can be thought of as non-linear, but unless you cut up the video tape, it's linear.
Xesdeeni
VCDs are 352x240 (non-interlaced), so you are not getting the same quality as your input VHS tape (this post has more details). DVD is a better choice.
Xesdeeni
Doesn't the DMCA prohibit a company from investigating a violation of their IP if the violation exists on the other side of encryption?
For example, if company M utilized a software algorithm (putting aside the argument about software patents for the moment) inside an encrypted data stream (audio file, video file, etc.) that was actually patented by company A, wouldn't it be a violation of the DMCA for company A to investigate this violation of their patent rights? And wouldn't any evidence they uncovered in violation of the DMCA be inadmissible if they tried to enforce their patent rights against company M?
Xesdeeni
Do I completely misunderstand the scope of the DMCA, or would it have actually prohibited the actions of clone manufacturers, starting with Compaq, when they reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS in 1984?
It seems this simple fact alone would highlight the ludicrous nature of a law which would prohibit precisely the actions that provided the current state of the industry.
Xesdeeni
At some point, either Peppercoin or the online merchant must charge the credit cards of each customer. Say the product is $1 a piece.
:-)
* If Peppercoin does this for each customer, they have the same problem as the merchants had before: the transaction fee will destroy their profits.
* If the online merchant charges the $10 to only one customer, there are going to be some pretty upset people. 9 people get it for free, and one pays $10?
Unless there is some way to combine these 10 transactions into one, including 10 credit card charges, this makes absolutely no sense.
OTOH, maybe it WILL work. It's a purchasing lottery!
"Got stuck with the $10 bill that time?" Play again! You in?
Xesdeeni
schon
Since this has already scrolled off the first, page, I don't know if you will still see this response. Your e-mail isn't listed but if you do see this and would be willing to continue this dialog, please e-mail me directly at "Xesdeeni2001 over at yahoo dot com." I don't quite understand all of what you say above, so I have many questions. You seem to know plenty about the details of e-mail, and if you would be so kind as to help educate me on how it actually works, maybe I can also understand why you have your doubts.
Xesdeeni
I don't see why the e-mail clients need to do the work. Without a server, there is no connection to the network, so they are the conduit. Validation can and should be done there, so that the modifications only need to be done to this more limited set of devices.
It's useless to try to do this between servers, as the servers can't verify if someone sent an email or not.
Why do you say this? The servers must know if an e-mail address or a bounce address exists in order to deliver the e-mail to the recipient. So a request of the server responsible for receiving e-mail to a given address can provide the verification that is was indeed sent. A forged e-mail address will not be recognized by any server, so it will flag an e-mail as SPAM.
Xesdeeni
So where does bounced mail go? That's the route this verification process should probably follow.
Xesdeeni
As with any "new" idea, it's just bits and pieces of others :-)
But I don't want a one-off solution, just for me, especially if it requires anyone who wants to send me e-mail to comply. This should work for everyone, and should be completely invisible to all. Then at least you'll KNOW who sent you the SPAM and you can act accordingly.
Xesdeeni
You look like someone who may understand the details. I don't understand everything you did above, but I think that was the first pass on this idea.
But the problem is that an e-mail can just spoof a real return address. Then the validation will say "yup, that's one of my e-mail addresses," and the SPAM will go right through. That's why I came up with the key process. This way, the validation can say "yup, that's one of my e-mail addresses, and yup, that's an e-mail that came from me."
Xesdeeni
First, for complete backwards compatibility, if there is no key included in the e-mail, no filtering is done at all, so your e-mail would get through as it does today. Initially this also means no effect on SPAM. But this is a long-term solution, and would take a year or so (with complete cooperation) to roll out. It will take some time for all the servers to be updated with this capability. But eventually the only servers left sending e-mail without this key (and accompanying verification ability) will be able to be spoofed. And at that point, simple bounces can be generated for e-mail without a key to convince the few holdouts to update their servers.
As I understand it, the "From" field and "Reply-to" fields don't have to be the same. So as long as your server honors validation requests from a certain e-mail address, it still can refuse incoming mail.
Xesdeeni