No spam notices: Difference between revisions
From ASRG
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: {{ast |date= |difficult=Low |popular=Low |effective=Low |harm=Low |where=MTA }} No spam notices are analogous to the "no junk mail" notices that people can put on their physical mailboxes ...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ast | {{ast | ||
|date= | |date=1998 | ||
|difficult=Low | |difficult=Low | ||
|popular=Low | |popular=Low | ||
Latest revision as of 09:58, 21 March 2008
| Anti-spam technique: No spam notices | |
|---|---|
| Date of first use: | 1998 |
| Effectiveness: | Low |
| Popularity: | Low |
| Difficulty of implementation: | Low |
| Where implemented: | MTA |
| Harm: | Low |
No spam notices are analogous to the "no junk mail" notices that people can put on their physical mailboxes in some countries. In 1998 CAUCE floated a proposal for a NO UCE tag in the SMTP banner, which was later adapted by Carl Malamud into [RFC 3865] in 2004.
Notices would only be effective to the extent that mailers follow them, and the only possible motivation to follow them would be national laws requiring mailers to do so. Spammers wouldn't of course, but sending spam to a recipient with a banner would be prima facie evidence of breaking the law.
