At 11:58 AM 5/16/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote:
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
Take a look, perhaps someone should contact the TDMA people and ask for
their sources.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg