Traditional method |
P2T method |
1. Permissiveness to computer attacks trough BotNet networks. |
1. BotNet networks incompatible with this format. |
2. Substantial losses in time lost inchoice of really important messages. |
2. Not applicable, motivated by the point nr.6. |
3. Substantial losses in rental companies mail protection. |
3. Local protection. |
4. Concerns in the public disclosure of e-mail address. |
4. Public disclosure of e-mail address without restrictions. |
5. Difficulty in identifying the sender. |
5. The sender always identified. |
6. Get everything that you send. |
6. Get just what you want. |
7. The “cost” is on the side of the receiver. |
7. The “cost” is on the side of the transmitter. |
8. Networks with high bandwidth needs to thwart the 85% of existing electronic garbage. |
8. Maximized performance. There is no bandwidth occupied by unsolicited messages. |
9. Protection for complex filtering method with the disadvantage of appear false-positives or false-negatives. |
9. Accuracy need in it receive by “flow control by selection”. |
10. Maintenance of a complex database. |
10. No need to use the database. |
11. The current filtering method is in some cases 99.99%. |
11. Spammers need only 0.005% to succeed in your business. Still there is no space for this success in P2T model presented. |
|
|