ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] C/R - What people say

2003-05-16 09:30:44


On Thursday, May 15, 2003 7:49 PM, Yakov Shafranovich 
[SMTP:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com] wrote:
8<...>8
... As I mentioned before, we need to better define the goals of
C/R. Is is to make sure that senders are legit, or is it going to an extra
level to making sure the sender is human (essentially creating a Turing
Test). As for having spammers set up automatic responders, see TDMA FAQ,
section 1.1 (http://tmda.net/faq.cgi?req=all):

------snip--------
"1.1. Can't spammers just setup an auto-responder to defeat TMDA? *

In theory yes, but in practice this is not likely to happen. Most SPAM is
unrepliable, so TMDA's confirmation requests are never delivered to them.
They use non-valid return addresses as to not incur the cost of the
tremendous number of bounces they generate. Using a valid return address to
process all the bounces looking for confirmation messages to auto-reply to
would defeat their economies of scale. It would also make them easy to
block, track down and report, sue, etc. In short, trying to thwart TMDA in
this manner would defeat the cost-effectiveness of the bulk-mailing
process. Simple economics keep us safe.

This para. is interesting.  It proposes some significant properties of SPAM. 
 Is this information verifiable?  Was a study done to determine it's validity 
empirically, or is it anecdotal?  It does, at first glance, appear valid but I 
would be interested in validating the study used to garner this information 
before preceding on its base arguments.  Are there references in the document?

-e



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



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>