An anonymous reader writes: Email has been on the internet for a long time and so has spam. Although anti-spam techniques are not losing the battle, it is not winning either.
Some background terms: Current smtp/email standars are RFC5321 and RFC5322. To avoid spam most people use DNSBLs and URIBLs for checking IP addresses and URLs. And there are some other content checks being done in spam-filters (e.g. by Spamassassin or non-free). Furthermore there are reputation-based systems such as SenderScore. There are some standards to avoid your domains being abused: SPF and DMARC. The large inbox-providers like Live.com and Gmail have additional filtering and throttling based on reputation and engagement (= is someone actually reading/clicking your company email).
And then there are some players in the field: ISPs send email for individuals and very small companies. ESPs (e.g. Constant Contact or MailChimp) send email for larger companies. Anti-spam organisations (such as Spamhaus, Spamcop or Sorbs) use spam information to create blocklists. Spamfilter companies (e.g. Proofpoint, Barracuda and SpamExperts) sell you a spamfilter-service and/or device. Furthermore there are a whole slew of email receivers: Large (such as Apple and Live.com/Gmail type) and smaller (companies and ISP/hosting companies). Then there are law-makers and regulatory bodies (who set and maintain laws) and I will include MAAWG here. And to not forget the spammers: Legitimate companies and criminal organisations (who spam for all sorts of reasons: marketing, selling, phishing, scamming, spear-phishing ...). I would define spam as all email that I would not expect to get (no opt-in, too long ago or inappropriate content given the relationship).
So my question is: Current anti-spam methods are not good enough. What should change in email so spam (of all sorts) is more effectivly countered?
