Inconsistant parsing of same domain

[mshalperin]

Exactly.  The only 'natural' way to control spam is the use of blocklists because blocklists do not 'force' anyone to behave differently.

Raising consumer consciousness as Ralph Nader did might make a difference, IMHO.  Huge corporations can be 'embarrassed' into being good citizens by consumers who make enough noise.

39283[/snapback]

Blocklists are getting more prevalent, but spam is still growing faster. Ralph Nader was effective only through class action lawsuits - not "embarrassing" corporations or just raising public consciousness. That was 30 years ago and few now regard spam as significant a threat as unsafe cars...

Alternately getting ISPs to use blocklists effectively shuts out spammers who use open proxies and compromised machines.  since those IP addresses don't normally send email, there is no interruption of email service, but buyers of spam don't get the spam.  Again, a consumer choice that could make a difference.

The operative concepts are "getting ISP's" and "consumer choice". There is little evidence that either approach is effective. Compromised computers in the form of vast herds of zombies are growing exponentially despite the proliferation of ISP's claiming to "block spam" and PC "protection". 99.99% of email users have no concept of blocklists, or have any clue as to why their emails don't get through. The small numbers who complain here (or are enlightened be the FAQ's) as to why they are getting blocked are insignificant in terms of a "consumer force".

Licensing users (both end users and ISPs) is another suggestion that has been put forward

.

Yes, that might work. But with licensing comes restrictions and monitoring of content...

Another development might be that every computer would have its own IP address.

Is this really feasible without extremely expensive restructuring of the net. Who is going to pay for it?

OTOH, if bandwidth gets more expensive, then ISPs will start charging those who don't avail themselves of ISP controlled spam filters

But bandwidth seems to be getting less expensive despite the growing volume of spam.

[Miss Betsy]

99.99% of email users have no concept of blocklists, or have any clue as to why their emails don't get through.

And that's the problem. If more people understood, then there would eventually be a 'tipping point' where consumer s would demand 'real' spam protection.

Is this really feasible without extremely expensive restructuring of the net. Who is going to pay for it? [for every computer to have its own IP address]

I don't know what the mechanics are. But I don't see why it would be necessarily be expensive. At least in the future. As it is static IP addresses are available now. Again, it probably won't happen because those now in control of internet access don't see an advantage to it.

It will be interesting to see how the internet develops. Actually, licensing for competency does not involve 'content' - the main obstacle is who is the licensing agency. It would have to be a voluntary group, IMO, who set standards for members and who publish a blocklist of those who do not meet those standards.

Miss Betsy

[turetzsr]

<snip>

Is this really feasible without extremely expensive restructuring of the net. Who is going to pay for it? [for every computer to have its own IP address]

I don't know what the mechanics are. But I don't see why it would be necessarily be expensive. At least in the future. As it is static IP addresses are available now.

<snip>

39315[/snapback]

...IIUC, it's because static IP addresses are a limited resource; there are more individual devices that require IP addresses than there are static addresses (at least under the current four-character address [nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn] scheme), so some must share dynamic addresses.

[mshalperin]

IIUC, it's because static IP addresses are a limited resource; there are more individual devices that require IP addresses than there are static addresses (at least under the current four-character address [nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn] scheme), so some must share dynamic addresses.

39895[/snapback]

Also - static IP addresses are per modem, not computer; typically with several computers sharing an internet IP address from a router.