On Monday, May 05, 2003 12:01 PM, Alan DeKok
[SMTP:aland(_at_)freeradius(_dot_)org] wrote:
Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Spam is about filtering bad guys. RMX is about labeling good guys.
Hence, with RMX, you still know nothing about bad guys.
I don't quite agree.
How does it help to control spam if you continue to know nothing about
the bad guys?
Right now, we have a pool of SMTP originators. The pool contains
both good guys, and bad guys. It's difficult and expensive for any
recipient to distinguish between them.
With tools like RMX, a recipient can easily seperate the pool into
"accountable" originators, and "unknown" originators. This means that
the bad guys are more likely to be marked as bad guys, and the good
guys less likely to be so marked. While this doesn't give you direct
information about the bad guys, it does give you indirect information:
They're not the good guys.
In summary, RMX allows us to increase our confidence in the marking
probability for bad guys.
I don't quite agree. I would say:
You increase your pool of known origination points, RMX does not control
spammers (at all) end system policy would perform that trick, RMX would enable
the end system manager to establish additional policy controls based on
'relevant' criteria, nothing more. It would be just as useful for a spammer to
use RMX (though if they are engaging in forgery less likely) in order to
counteract lax policy controls based upon RMX.
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg