on 6/2/2003 5:28 PM J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net>
'anti-spam' is the wrong focus. Spam is a social problem, not an
Sorry, I don't agree with this logic: if it's valid, then why try to
design better locks, since theft is a social problem?
All human action (and crime especially) is a result of opportunity and
desire. Locks and other defenses are designed to impede opportunity, while
the law is supposed to restrain desire.
Most of us have the equivalent of locks already, either in the form of
blacklists, filters, whatever. Coming up with more of these is fine, but
those will only address the question of utility within certain scopes. By
the same measure, a lock on a barn door in an Iowa cornfield has different
utility than a lock on the door of a Porsche in a crowded ghetto (on the
Internet, of course, everybody is your roommate). Nobody makes a lock that
is deployable everywhere, and which cannot be easily circumvented by a
willing expert. There's no reason to believe that any particular anti-spam
"solution" is going to work any better.
Security cameras are another form of deterrant, and which work towards
reducing both the opportunity and the desire. Think of an authenticated
mail system as being analogous to security cameras. You will still want to
have the locks that are appropriate for your needs, but making the
presence of security cameras known is going to keep some people from
succumbing to the desire, while having the criminals on tape will prove
useful when they decide they want to get past the locks.
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/