On Tue, 6 May 2003, Barry Shein wrote:
MR> Ask yourself: Why are spammers drawn to bighost.com addresses?
BS> When was the last time you said "stranger(_at_)aol(_dot_)com"? Why
BS> it must be important, IT'S FROM AOL.COM!
Perhaps... but then why do spammers do it?
BS> The only thing that might carry some trust is someone(_at_)xyz(_dot_)com
where
BS> you believe you recognize someone, particularly in the context of
BS> @xyz.com, like yourbrokersname(_at_)hisbrokeragehouse(_dot_)com(_dot_)
RMX addresses that problem too; spammers will not be able to claim to
write on behalf of yourbrokersname(_at_)hisbrokeragehouse(_dot_)com(_dot_)
That's a good
thing!
MR> If we can prevent spammers from using respected names, then we've
MR> pushed them toward unknown names (or more precisely, names from which
MR> the recipient does not normally receive ham) which carry a lower
MR> default credibility; a message will have to look substantially more
MR> spam-like to be rejected if it comes legitimately (according to RMX
MR> records) from bighost.com.
BS> If that's your goal then just add the mailbox and call it
BS> whitelisting.
Whitelisting only works if you're reasonably sure the sender is who he
claims to be. Ergo, RMX.
BS> Anyhow, no, I disagree, it's a tiny, tiny improvement in the spam
BS> arena.
Fair enough; this is a matter of opinion, and only time will tell. But
the forgery reduction aspect makes RMX useful enough to stand on its own,
and RMX can only help with spam.
BS> It *might* be some improvement in general identification to prevent
BS> certain types of malicious fraud.
8<...>8
BS> BUT THAT'S NOT SPAM (oops, sorry for shouting.)
Barry, please--my response wasn't (intended to be) a flame, or otherwise
rude.
Spam is a problem for senders, whose reputations get damaged by spam in
their names, and for recipients. RMX helps a great deal on the sender
side, and a little bit on the receiver side--though since none of us knows
exactly how much, there seems to be a lot of very loud debate on the
subject. And RMX definitely helps with fraud.
From your earlier responses, I had gathered that you were largely in favor
of RMX, albeit only for the last reason. Has that changed?
Mike
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg