I'v been busy first part of the day and ohhh this list has been really
really {insert 10 times more} busy.
Now to the point, I think its absolutly right, we should not have to
transfer so much junk, there should be a way to let spammer now - begone,
I don't want your garbage at the tranmission time. This does have a
downside, that it will help spammer to identify if their email is getting
through or not, but I think they have ways to do it already and are quite
inventive about getting around the filters as it is.
Also we this list has spent a lot during the day discussion what spam is,
I don't think any one definition exists, may have their own definition so
its up to the receipient or administrator of the mail server or both to
define it for their system and the solution should be good enough to
accomodate their preference (preferably during MTA transmission).
Now good deal of spampers are really afraid of being traced but there is
also good deal of people who like to be anonymous. This problem is really
fundamental to our solution and I'm afraid the views are generally
opposite, i.e. I do not see any easy way to do both at the same time.
Personally I'd rather have more shift to tracebility then anonymity and
for anonimity the only way would be for some special mail services to
exist that are generally "whitelisted" by ISPs and have good privacy
policies. Again, this is fundamental issue that we'll have to choose one
way or the other.
That is for now, but I'm trying hard to scan through all days discussion
to see what else I want to say... Maybe I'll have more time tomorrow.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote:
"David F. Skoll" <dfs(_at_)roaringpenguin(_dot_)com> wrote:
Well, Alan, I have no idea what you did to attract that much spam, but
I assure you, it's unusual. None of my clients nor the 500+ people on
the MIMEDefang mailing list have reported anywhere near the spam stats
on striker.ottawa.on.ca
That's why I joined this list, and why I'm making such noise about
the issue. Everyone I talk to complains about the spam "problem", and
they get 3 orders of magnitude less spam than I do.
That's my point. I don't *care* how cheap it is to run any kind of
filtering software. It's still too expensive.
For you, maybe so.
So what are my alternatives? Give up on email? Pay $2k/year to
upgrade my equipment?
All of the proposed solutions which talk about filtering mail are a
waste of time. Does it really make sense to allow terabytes of
garbage to fill the network? Why wouldn't we just solve the problem
by minimizing the garbage traffic, instead of upgrading the network?
People who propose mail filters as a "solution" are implicitely
accepting that wasting network bandwidth and CPU time is OK. My
opinion is that we should minimize the problem, and THEN talk about
filtering. The filters will be cheaper to use, and will probably have
higher accuracy.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg