From: J C Lawrence <claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu>
...
If your threshold of effectivenewss is 10%, not even getting AOL to
apply your mechanism will work.
<shrug> So all is useless?
Things that do not have obviously and immediate good effects simply
do not get deployed voluntarily. The only way you could get a mechanism
with a 10% threshold deployed is a law requiring it. Even a law is
not be certain to produce 10% deployment without clear and immediate
benefits for the first 9%. I hope you agree a law would certainly be
a bad thing.
Anything that has as an 80% deployement threshold to produce 80% spam
filtering effectiveness is completely useless even with government
help. There is no longer a single government with enough power, and
never will be again until and unless the net is near death or the
world's political landscape is very different.
As far as I can tell, the proposals that have deployment thresholds
for 80% effectiveness have them closer to 80% deployment than 10%.
...
We may know who the human is. That will help when and as the laws you
later mention progress. What we don't recognize are the messages as
specifically his or specifically forged that human injects at the time
of injection, those messages as they are wandering the network, or even
(generally) as they hit an LDA. If we could recognise any of those
things in a machine auditable and verifiable fashion we'd be in a
considerable better position.
You seem to be among the many who assume something I think is false.
That is that most spam is "forged" in any meaningful sense of that
word. I think that the laws against header forgery have convinced
most spammers to use sender addresses that they own, albeit often
only for a little while.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg