Alan DeKok wrote:
"Chris Lewis" <clewis(_at_)nortelnetworks(_dot_)com> wrote:
- spam is a behaviour, not a content. You're trying to identify the
sender behaving that way, not the material per-se.
One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't
currently set up to even be *aware* of volume.
That leads to an interesting question: can we extend the lower layers of
the Internet protocols (eg: at TCP/IP) to allow someone to specify and
enforce rate limiting in such a way as to seriously affect spam?
Unfortunately, I think not. Consider striker - that's a broad-source
attack. Any one of the IPs spamming striker has less volume than some
of our legitimate senders. Anyone disagree?
Is the IETF going to decide that traffic/protocol attacks on the
network infrastructure are outside of the scope of technical
solutions?
I think there's going to have to be. As door locks are a good technical
solution for certain classes of undesirable behaviour, you need ot
resort to legislation and police enforcement to even begin to get a
handle on the overall problem.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg