“Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results” — Albert Einstein

39th Anniversary of First Spam Email

Very recently Cisco released its security report that left me apprehensive. In fact, he continues left me every year.

There is one element that in this report gains more prominence with respect to the others. Cisco’s director of security marketing for Europe and other markets, James McNab, at a press event said:

“The tactics that we thought were gone are coming back, one example is spam, it was disappearing, but now it’s coming back”

I desperately wanted this not to be true even to the detriment of my study, but what is certain is that after almost 40 years ( I repeat in case they have not read well — 40 years), the facts favor the trends.

I do not tire of questioning, as it is possible in the current times when

  • we promise filtering capabilities in the order of 99.99%
  • where technology explodes almost daily in exponential terms
  • big players in the security market continue to create solutions

…yet email spam remains at 65%.

If I invented a plan for the cure of a terminal illness and after ten years of not achieving results, would there be any investors who would bet on my work with these results? What about the email spam problem, we’ve already had almost 40 years? (I did not forget to repeat the same thing, did’n I?).

The truth is that the answer lies in the methods applied. More or less complex, only filtering capabilities were applied. Nothing more.

The differentiating model of the P2T (permission to transmit) project reverses this trend and theoretically has already proved capable of guaranteeing these results. Transfer the burden of the charge that is currently on the recipient and pass this to the sender.

“Would you pay for a FAX or a phone call that was made by me? Okay, here’s the answer.”

The costs inherent to the initial storage capacity, management, control and load on the server, must be the responsibility of the sender. It is not possible to continue to attribute the responsibility of these costs to the recipient, however much he may be interested. It will be more of interest in those who want to “sell” your product or service. Regrettably legitimate senders will be included, but if we compare the costs we all currently have that our ISP or our company’s server has to deal with, either directly or indirectly, we’ll see that just because we’re offering a free bandwidth of Electronic trash circulating in the network, we will be counterbalancing to the extent that “everyone wins”.

Advantages of this new model of control

Let’s start by differentiating between control and filtering. Although a filtering model is also a way of controlling what should be authorized, here in the broadest sense, the disadvantage is that with this method, filtering suffers from deficiencies that are always dependent on the increasingly intelligent advances of the criminal groups. Is burlesque that if somehow the technology is helping these groups to develop more and more with sophisticated weapons but also the great players of the market could do it and one does not see the same ambition. But its biggest defect is the attempt to control the submission of information only after it has already been circulating on the network. There is nothing preventive but only reactive.

The advantage of P2T control, among others, allows a free public disclosure of email addresses without the fear of being take abused, prevents botnet networks exploiting the concept of email and prevents “non-repudiation”. (See also “Compare deals”). The control is done at the server level but on the sender side.


subject to discussion