Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> wrote:
Spoofing is bad, but it is not at all the core problem with spam.
So there's no point in solving one part of the spam problem, because
the problem is larger than that. Yeah, that makes sense...
And, by the way, in the off-chance that RMX actually does achieve
wide-scale deployment, the folks who are currently doing spoofing will
simply move on to other techniques.
... other "existing" techniques. RMX doesn't give the spammers any
new methods by which to spam. Therefore use of RMX will change only
the frequency distribution of the use of existing techniques.
Therefore, there will be no new interaction effects. Therefore, the
possible space allowed for spamming will be smaller and/or more
expensive.
If implementing an anti-spam system gives sites a net benefit, it
would seem logical that they have incentive to implement it. If the
system gives no net benefit, then there's obviously no implementation
incentive.
I will return the favor, by suggesting that folks inform themselves
about the realities of Internet-scale operations, Internet-scale
deployment physics, and Internet-scale spammer adaptability.
Then, perhaps, we will not be presented with localized, near-term
proposals that will have no impact on large-scale, long-term spamming.
OK, I'll bite: Is there anything in SMTP practice, implementation, or
protocol that you are willing to change to fight spam? Is there any
cost you are willing to pay to fight spam?
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg