Hi,
Hadmut Danisch a écrit:
> I meanwhile came to the conclusion that this
> working/research group's will certainly fail.
If we get focalized on the technical aspects of the spam problem, the
trafic will lower and the signal/noise ratio will get higher. Moderation ?
Anti-spam efforts are welcome as long as they strengthen the
public awareness of spam and make people purchase
anti-spam-solutions.
I don't agree :
Outside the mail-abuse.org blacklists, most are free blacklists. How do
you explain it ? The Spamassassin content filter is free. TMDA(tmda.net)
is free. And so on.
But a solution which effectively prevents spam
at zero costs is deprecated. Zero costs means zero revenue.
It means we will all stop loosing our time handling spam and do
something more constructive with the time it helped us free.
Why are so many people strictly against anything what could prevent
spam at the sender side? Because the sender wouldn't pay for a
solution.
There is a customer-provider relation that makes it difficult for ISP to
unilateraly redefine the rules.
They fear too much loosing their customers in case their AUP gets too
restrictive or the sending process got too much complicated compared to
other ISPs.
Why do so many people insist on the freedom of the sender
to send whatever the sender wishes to send with a sender address the
sender can randomly choose?
With the RMX proposal you made, the sender will be limited to his domain
(easy to stop him from spamming then) or to the others customers of
their ISP domains (easy to complain to them too).
Which means a domain owner can/will complain to his ISP in case his
domain gets abused by spammers also customers of the same ISP.
This will put the financial pressure back on the ISP side (customer
complaining about another customer), and I am quite enthusiastic with
such a scheme.
Spam doesn't sell significant numbers of penis enlargement devices.
Spam sells Anti-Spam-software. That's the business.
Don't give spammers such ideas ;-)
I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out
to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and
trying to put through recipient-only solutions.
Maybe. Who knows. The solution is to use free software anti-spam
solutions only (maybe talking for my church here), so you will avoid to
feed the spammers anyway.
And maybe that's why the mailing list is flooded with so much
rubbish and babble. That's some kind of denial of service attack.
That's what I though at first when I subscribed.
But I think the problem is different.
I think people are too much sensitive about spam, and they need to talk
about it, like when you talk with the psychiatric people because you
want to punch your neighbour making too much noise and you cannot get
him to lower the volume politely.
I must admit I am a little bit like that, too, after having suffered
from the spam cancer for years like most people.
Most subscribers seem to seek the holy grail, a global mean to stop spam.
They have already though a lot about what could be done, eventually
tried to develop some personnal-crafted solutions that didn't work or
not efficiently enough.
I suggest that this group gets moderated for a few weeks/monthes, so we
can get on track to the real work efficiently.
For my part, I will vote for the moderation if someone propose it.
This working/research group lacks at least a FAQ containing what concern
it and what does not. Until we get that, and subscribed people to
respect it, we will go nowhere : the topic is too hot and too broad, and
even good willing people will have difficulties to help things advance
without any guidance.
I propose to consider inadequate the following topics to begin with :
* country laws related to spam topics
We are designing a technical system, and due to the differences of the
spam laws among countries, it is useless to discuss that here.
If we get a reasonably efficient system to stop spam, it would be up the
the users/administrators to check if they can apply it safely in their
country and keep legal or if they need to change the country laws first.
* content filtering systems topics (aka spamassassin and the like)
The basis of those systems is to evolve and mutate to accomodate the
mutation of the spams. This contradicts completely a RFC-like
standardization process like the asrg list intends to do.
Not to say that standard content filters are not interesting, but it
should be handled on a separate list.
* hacking topics
The fact that protocol implementations like the DNS ones or others are
currenctly hackable are not our problem. If hardening of protocols are
needed, it has to be handled at the protocol layer by the related
protocol working group.
* "we will completely broke the smtp protocol to begin with" topics
The Internet is a big beast and cannot move like that. Proposals must be
able to cope with a running internet during several years at least, and
people thinking about redesigning it to the ground should create a
separate list to discuss about their own ideas on this topic, and come
back when they get something at least a bit realistic.
Frank de Lange said :
> To paraphrase Churchill, 'we shall go on to the end... we shall
> fight them... we shall never surrender...'
Pierre
--
PARALLINE /// Parallelism & GNU/Linux
///
71,av des Vosges Phone:+33 388 141 740
F-67000 STRASBOURG Fax:+33 388 141 741 http://www.paralline.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg