3 ms·

I don't understand the proposal. Why would the spammer even need to store the email on his own server. It could just be generated on demand.

• gojomo 6y ago
  Spammers having to maintain that live server code/state, for regenerating the targeted email from the recipient-request, would've still been better than everyone else receiving & storing their junk! In the early days of email, fire-and-forget mailing, from fly-by-night servers, imposing costs on all recipients, was an actual problem.
• jsnell 6y ago
  You're correct. But spam-fighting isn't one of the rationales listed in https://cr.yp.to/im2000.html https://cr.yp.to/im2000.html, so this blog post seems like a strawman.
• xorcist 6y ago
  Spam senders who use their own infrastructure is pretty much solvable using things like reputation score. Details varies but they generally work good enough. Hence, most spam piggybacks on other infrastructure. At the time of IM2000, an eternity in Internet time, most of this was done using open or poorly secured relays. Reputation score worked well for that too and that spam vector is closed now. Remaining vectors are hacked infrastructure and the large cloud and free email providers. Storage cost could be relevant to escalate the problem for the latter.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]