a bit of lovely news about spam in California

Sat Jan 5 09:18:52 PST 2002

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, David Wolfskill wrote:

> As you know, there are both "one-time" and "ongoing" expenses to most
> expenditures, and this is a case where the one-time expenses are
> considerable.  (The ongoing ones could be significant, as well, of
> course.)

True, but I tend to think that a lot of these one time expenses could
be mitigated if the new system were setup initially in parallel.  Obviously
it would take several years before client programs on peoples PC's would
start to support such a protocol, but we've seen new email technologies 
such as IMAP slowly make their way out into the "real" world.

> It is not clear to me that this is the only way to go.  :-}

Cool.  Personally I'm just anxious to see some solutions put in place,
and I don't think the current methods being employed are likely to do 
anything but hold the line at best.  Email transport as currently 
constituted is far to trusting and I'm not sure that the system can
be fixed without being replaced.

-- 
Mike Miller             mke @ turbolift.com