At 08:20 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, Madscientist wrote:
[..]
I suggest we remain focused on solving the problem of control and the
suppression of abuse. This can be done by technical means in a
decentralized fashion, and we'd better get on with it.
+ adjustments and enhancements to open protocols and standards.
+ distributed, dynamic threat detection and response mechanisms.
+ intelligent controls that allow recipients to define the content they want.
+ adaptive propagation mechanisms to enhance efficiency.
...
If the infrastructure of the Internet disconnects abusers, and the
definition of abuse is controlled by the recipients, then the economics
will be well defined for the spammer: If you abuse this network you will
be removed from it and _no amount_ of money will get your messages to
unwilling recipients. It will also be well defined for the provider:
Implement these protocols or lose customers to those who do.
[..]
As I mentioned in a different thread there seems to be two types of
solutions to the spam problem: one focusing on the senders and the network
(network abuse model), and the second focusing on the receiver's end only
(consent model). I think that both are equally valid and we should be
looking at both, and restrict ourselves.
Also, from a recent message by Alan DeKok:
-----snip----
Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
>If both problems are similar, then perhaps we need to look into what
> methods are currently in place to block DDOS attacks and we can
> reuse the same methods here for spam.
"DDoS attacks can only be prevented if the network entities mutually
cooperate to minimize the scope of the attack. As seen here, that's
extremely difficult to do."
-----snip----
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg