Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't
currently set up to even be *aware* of volume.
What about things like the DCC? The fundamental purpose and idea of
the DCC is to measure the volume of mail messages.
That's great, but most of the net isn't running DCC.
And notwithstanding my opinions about filters, if most of the net
*did* run something like DCC, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
The lower layers have since practically the beginning been set up to
measure rates and some ISPs have since the 1980's been set u to "specify
and enforce rate limiting." Recall the rates that said "buy a T1 and
pay for a 56K unless and until you use more."
That's raw bandwidth, which isn't a good measure of network attacks,
or of end-user consent to being hammered by that bandwidth.
You also said "in such a way as to seriously affect spam". The fact
that all email including spam is a small part of the total bandwidth
used kills the idea of doing much about spam by counting raw bits.
If you assume that you can't distinguish email from any other
traffic, then yes. But I don't think that assumption is true.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg