4 ms·
If storage is the sender's responsibility, then there would most likely be no reason for recipients to ever bother downloading unsolicited messages from address
by redahs 11y ago
If storage is the sender's responsibility, then there would most likely be no reason for recipients to ever bother downloading unsolicited messages from addresses originating outside of their web of trust in the first place.
You could push spam blocking to the end user and client, and simply let them not download messages originating from unknown origins (similar to phone + Caller ID), without having to worry about dealing with spam in a centralized manner.
- jodrellblank 11y agoIf storage is the sender's responsibility, then not only can they potentially get some of your attention, but also your location, what kind of device(s) you use to get email, when you're active, and precisely what kind of content is enticing you to click and what isn't. A very tight feedback loop for generating content that will trick you, and hosting it for just long enough to see if it works.
- jwatte 11y agoThe problem is not the few kilobytes of body. The problem is the slot that the notification takes up in my inbox and attention, which IM2000 does nothing to solve.
- redahs 11y agoWell none of this is happening unless we are using a new mail protocol, and if we are using a new protocol we might as well throw in the kitchen sink and give you a new mail transfer agent and mail client application as well. And in the new application: Address == Public Key, Address book == web of trust. Your mail agent probably doesn't even bother to check or propagate incoming message notifications from addresses you haven't manually added to your address book (100% trust), or addresses within a certain number of hops from someone you manually added to your address book (friends of friend, boss's employees, etc.). And the mail client could further hide and ignore all of the notifications from below a certain user customizable trust score as well.