From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
1. Spam Prevention Approaches - These systems aim to prevent the
spread of spam messages. There are fail-open and fail-closed systems.
With my spokeperson hat on I prefer the terms 'Detect Wanted' and
'Detect Junk'. I am not going to use any term that involves the
word 'fail' with a journalist when talking about my work or
company products.
...
That's almost but quite right. Besides using the forbidden word "fail,"
I needed a few seconds to understand "fail open/closed."
"Detect Wanted" is ok, but "Detect Junk" is not for the same reason that
"fail something" is not. "Detect Unwanted" would be better.
Personally, think "reject by default" and "accept by default"
are better still.
...
I think that legal/legislative approaches should rank a bullet here. We
should also mention vigilante actions such as teergrubbing and hackback, I
don't approve of these, they create far more problems than people claim.
Teergrubbing sounds silly to people who know that some spamware uses
illegal SMTP command pipelining. Some spammers send send the entire
client SMTP transaction including the ending TCP FIN before the STMP
server has finished doing the reverse DNS lookup to decide whether to
post its banner. Whether the STMP server delays 10 ms or 10 hours is
of no concern to them.
Yes, not withstanding my recent claim that other spammers want to hear
5yz-no-such-user responses so that they can clean their target lists
to avoid AOL's filters. There are currently on a few spammers, but
they are incredibly diverse.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg