.Mail is unnecessary (already been mostly tried and failed)

[AccuSpam <support@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We will show below how the concept/intent of .Mail has already been implemented
without using special domain and without using "DNS".

There are 4 major conceptual features of proposed .Mail:

1. Sender is authenticated by relaying email over approved, verified servers
for the .Mail domain of sender.

2. Sender is verified to be spam-free by centralized database ("police") of
spam-free .Mail domains and their approved servers.

3. .Mail (is supposed to) signify trust but will often fail.

4. For a domain has a .Mail domain, use of domain without .Mail extension is
not verified, nor to be trusted.


Here is how to implement without using .Mail:

1. Sender inserts a small attachment which is crypographically secure hash of
private key and some portion of the email.

2. Sender's identity is verified and verified to be spam-free by centralized
database ("police") of spam-free signatures where public hash is submitting and
true/false result is returned.

3. The signature insures trust of identity (but same risks as .Mail in trust of
spam-free).

4. Not needed because signature either exists or not.


#1 eliminates the problem with .Mail, that senders can not send from any
server.

You still have many of the same problems as .Mail.  And it doesn't benefit from
the hype of .Mail to try to get recipients and ISPs to pay for the problem of a
few big corporations.  Which is probably why existing systems have not been
popular, which do the above key-based authentication, that are essentially same
as .Mail (sans the centralized "police" except for maybe a couple systems).

Shelby Moore
http://AccuSpam.com