I'm probably not going to be able to convince you, but...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Markus Stumpf wrote:
We already have many of these techniques and they are used. A lot of
them can easily be circumvented. What do they help? Does the spam volume
decline?
Each of the techniques now in use at one time was extremely effective.
Each of them still blocks spam in bucketfulls. Together, current
techniques can still block 90% of spam. Nothing at all that we do with
blocking will ever cause a decline in spam volume, and if anything, it
causes the spammers to increase their volume. But ultimately that volume
goes up whether we try blocking it or not. Are you suggesting we just
give up?
Most spam blocking techniques have the attribute that to circumvent it,
one either has to expose himself or resort to a more unethical/illegal
manner of sending the mail. The fact that spammers more often than not
choose the unethical/illegal route is not a failing of the spam blocking
techniques, but a failure in the spammer's moral compass. Such practices
only highlight the fact that spammers cannot be considered ethical.
Whatever we can do to push them to expose this should be encouraged.
--- James Lick --- 黎建溥 --- jlick(_at_)drivel(_dot_)com ---
http://drivel.com.tw/ ---
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg