On Tuesday, May 06, 2003 6:26 PM, Barry Shein
[SMTP:bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com] wrote:
On May 6, 2003 at 14:39 aland(_at_)freeradius(_dot_)org (Alan DeKok) wrote:
> 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...
No, the problem is that this spoofing is a minor problem and any
solution is easily evaded by spammers.
Please explain how. I think as an exercise it would be instructive to give an
example of how a spoofing solution would be evaded (easily). I agree that
spoofing is a problem (I do not know how minor as I get any where from 3-6k on
my small operation per day) those are only the ones I see so I will not
extrapolate that to the rest of the group. Others are dealt with by filters
and I will extract some numbers and perform analysis on those. I still get
'spammed' and I am not sure whether any ONE solution will suffice and be
workable or lead to wide-spread adoption.
Also, please address (if you are interested) the issue of framework and
architecture in proving a solution set. My thinking is Dave's paper on control
points is a start.
-e
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg