From: John Johnson <jjohn(_at_)mail(_dot_)sirinet(_dot_)net>
Presume that all email traffic is encrypted and you can't read the
content ...
Am I to also assume the recipient has no means to decrypt it?
I have seen obfuscated spam, but I have never seen encrypted
spam.
If your SMTP server offers to do STARTTLS, then even if you and a
few spammers don't have any certs or CAs in common, you could
receive encrypted spam and never notice unless you look closely
at logs or headers. I think I have.
Perhaps this is a quibble of definitions, but perhaps not. Both
STARTTLS and PGP or S/MIME involve encryption. It is not clear to
me that which sort was intended by the other people.
But I do get your point. Any fix of the situation should be
flexible enough to handle situations outside of simple
content matches. I was just pointing out that content matches
of a human nature generate the complaints. To try to divorce
...
That is another example of why we need definitions as much or more
than taxonomy and before talk of solutions. Some people define
"content filtering" (or "matching") as looking for bad words.
Others would have it cover fairly simple checksums of SMTP bodies
like Vipul's Razor. Still others limit it reading and understanding.
I need to go back and re-read Pual's new taxonomy, but I think it
suffers from this problem. It's hard for me to see because I think
I agree with most of his definitions and he has not used many
the sloppy words. It's only uses that make no sense with your
own definitions that stand out.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg