Markus Stumpf <maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg(_at_)space(_dot_)net> wrote:
The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult,
No, not really.
What is the probability to fake <name>@hotmail.com or
<name(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
and get a hit? I'd say if you do it halfway intelligent it's about 98%.
So you get mail from
susan23(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com
it gets verified by hotmail.com as existant.
What exactly help in this situation to eliminate spam?
When coupled with a system like RMX, the effectiveness of an 'ident'
increases substantially. Messages can be shown (with some confidence)
to be legitimately from a domain.
Together, these two techniques ensure that spammers are either
traceable, or more likely to be easily determined to be spammers.
I don't see the goal of this group to find a new method that works
for 2-6 months and after that it's worse than before.
None of these solutions are proposed in isolation. Can we please
STOP assuming that any solution will be the ONLY one implemented, and
attacking it based it's imperfections when used in isolation?
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg