ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] Technical Considerations for Spam Control Mechanisms

2003-04-30 13:19:44
In Section 2:
Hence Internet-wide designs of spam control must assume
that UA.o and MTA.o may cooperate to generate and 
transmit spam.  Efforts to control either of these 
components may be sought as an adjunct, where they are 
operated by an independent service, but it must not be relied on.
        While the text above is certainly true, I think that it may be
obscuring an important point. That is: Given any particular point in the
path from UA.o to UA.r, "spam" is something that can be seen as being
"done" by the component on the left to the component on the right.
        The point here is that MTA.o may be very motivated, for a
variety of reasons, to reduce the amount of spam that it receives from
UA.o. This would often be the case where the MTA.o is run as a shared
service such as by an ISP. However, the tone of the draft seems to
bundle MTA.o in as a co-conspirator of UA.o and thus potentially
distracts readers from carefully considering how MTA.o can protect
itself from UA.o orginated spam.
        Spam costs MTA.o's in terms of bandwidth, risk of blacklisting,
public reputation, etc. it should be recognized that some operators of
MTA.o's are just as victimized by spam as are others further downstream.

                bob wyman

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg