Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
2003-06-30 11:33:37
From: "Mark McCarron" <markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:21:09 +0000
The 'GIEIS' system is not designed to be backwards compatible. There is
no possible way for any solution to arise using the current system. If
it could be achieved it would have happened by now.
I am completely unconcerned with objections. As I said before, I not
designing a system to win a 'popularity' contest. I am concerned with
only one thing, complete effectiveness. Nothing else.
Then why are you participating in the group? If you are not here to ask for
our opinions, why waste our time and effort on this? This group is intended
for people to discuss the spam issue and get opinions, comments, and
objections, so the kinks in different proposals can be worked out before
they are implemented.
I looked at the systems you from the links you provided. They can all be
bypassed without too much effort.
It will not be an alternative, the system will not be active until the
patner companies are ready. Then it will become exclusive.
Can you name a few partners?
I read mike's proposal, its slightly different from my system. You will
understand this within the next hour or so.
Mark McCarron.
From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "Mark McCarron"
<markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>,asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:33 -0400
At 05:06 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
Thankyou for your reply. I have not been posting this conversation to
the group. You can if you wish, you have my full permission to do so.
Sorry, I wasn't refering to you personally about selling anti-span
solutions, that was just a general comment. 'The Ultimate Spam System'
may be too hard to handle, but that is an accurate description of the system.
There are numerous other proposals that seek to change the underlying
infrastructure - YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Example of this would be Walter
Dnes's proposal, another example would the AMDP protocol
(http://www.amdpmail.com/), MTP protocol
(http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt), etc. Also take a look at this
list message
(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00882.html)
that lists objection to new systems.
Also, as you learn within the next few hours, the system will be near
impossible to hack based upon its architecture. I have complete the
overview today, and it will be released in the next coming hours to the
mailing group.
I feel that change to the architecture is the magic bullet solution. I
am not claiming this will be easy, but it is certainly far from impossible.
We know as a group that changing the architecture will significantly
reduce the spam problem. However, moving over and implementing such
change is extremely hard as Alan DeKok and many other pointed out. Our
goal is to create a cohesive framework for anti-spam solutions with
short, medium and long term solutions.
This will not be an alternative email system that will reside along
side the current one. It will replace it completely making it entirely
redundant.
However until it does, it will operate side by side with the regular
SMTP. Thus, its alternative.
The US military is instigating a change to IPv6 in mid 2004 or 2006
(I'll clear that date up, the source is at Reuters, I read it a few days ago).
This will have a global impact, I believe that 'GIEIS' would be
implemented at this stage also.
IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 UNLIKE your system, Walter Dnes's
proposal and many others have accounted to backwards compatibility, you
have not yet as seen from this quote:
"What would happen if this system was implemented and I tried to send
spam or even an email from an older server?
The message would not be received by those protected by 'GIEIS'."
Also, my system would inform users when a limit was reached. Users
would know if they sent this volume of email and the system would have
information of those who suspect their machine was infected or hacked.
This idea has been proposed before by Mike Rubel
(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html).
Mark McCarron.
From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "Mark McCarron" <markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
Subject: [offlist] Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:29:09 -0400
The consent framework is not a specific solution - its a framework.
Various anti-spam tools and proposals including yours will fit into
this framework. It is more of a bird-eye view of all anti-spam solutions.
As for your specific proposal, first of all my company does not write
or distribute anti-spam software so I do not have "financial
considerations" here. I also do not like the name calling between
different group members - it causes a feeling of discord.
Additionally, calling your system "the ultimate anti spam system" is a
bit too much for most members to handle. I would like to see everyone
to stay away from name calling while keeping in mind that this is a
technical list.
As for the technical considerations of your proposal, what you are
proposing essentially is an alternative email system along side of the
current one. This is similar to the system being proposed by Walter
Dnes except that his system does not rely on cryptographic methods
(see
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05683.html).
The problem with this system is three fold - one is the fact that
everyone has to change in order to use it which is also a problem with
Walter's proposal. The second problem is privacy - what you are
essentially proposing is that every single email message will have a
tracking number that can be traced to the sender. This creates
potential for abuse. Third, inter-operability with existing email is a
big problem as well since no one would want to use an alternative
system unless many people will switch over to it and many people will
not switch to it until others use it. If you look through the mailing
list archive somewhere there is a list of requirements by Eric
Williams. I asked him to email me the most recent copy which I will
forward to you. Among those requirements, deployment and
inter-operability rank pretty high up.
It is obvious that creating an alternative email system will cut down
on spam since its the open nature of the Net that causes it. But as I
mentioned before, cell phone companies build their SMS systems based
on email (at least in US) and SMTP, so you can see how pervasive
existing standards are. Additionally, as Barry Shain has mentioned
many times before, much of spam is being sent via hacked computers.
Even with your rate limits in place, spammers can probably be able to
coordinate many hacked computers to send spam from legit GEIS/EAS senders.
Among the various discussions over the last few months, many of the
group members have reached a conclusion that there is not magic silver
bullet that will stop spam overnight. Rather, a combination of various
solutions and proposals will start cutting into the spam flow until it stops.
Yakov
P.S. I am replying to you off-list since the message that you sent me
was not CCed to the group list. Please let me know if this is correct
because I would rather have discussions in public so we can get
comments from other people.
At 03:23 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
Paul is an excellent poster, he has the subject matter clearly defined.
I see he has broken the issue down to two major catagories, local and
global.
The consent system is going to be difficult to implement, I haven't
seen anything that actually deals with issue of how to prevent sending spam.
The 'GIEIS' system would be on the middle ground in terms of consent
and its application would be global. It forces the erasure/stoppage
of all fraudulent email but also allows the end-user the whitelist options.
There has been a lot of confusion on the system and I have been
compiling all the postings in one file so that I can clearly address
all concerns.
Also, there seems to be quite a bit of opposition to the idea of a
centralised angency and a lot of paranoid responses to it. The more
I post on the subject, and the clearer the system has become,
concerns have dwindled. The main opposition now comes from those
advocating 'anti-spam software' and this is just to protect financial
considerations.
'GIEIS' is the only proposal I have ever seen that can stop all
fraudulent email. Are you aware of any others?
I'm am in the process of designing an Internet draft of the
system. It is a major task as there is a lot to go through. I have
30 pages of comments alone to address, however, all the comments have
a resolution within the 'GIEIS' system. I will post a complete
accurate proposal of the system in the next few days once I have
compiled all the information together. It will refer to both local,
global, consent and forced issues.
Mark McCarron.
From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "Mark McCarron"
<markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>,research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:52:34 -0400
Take a look at today's message from the chair, Paul Judge, on this
subject
(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05968.html).
The consent framework that we are discussing is not limited to
end-users only. The generic proposal that I put forth concentrated
specifically on the end-user and this is probably what is throwing you off.
Yakov
At 02:46 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
This I understand very well. What I am asking is, have you been
able to overcome any of the limitations I mentioned?
Mark McCarron.
From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "Mark McCarron"
<markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>,asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:41:54 -0400
First of all take a look a the group's charter
(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states we
are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in all
the different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was put
forth to solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent in
general and the consent framework in particular.
Yakov
At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
Yakov,
This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the
current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in
eliminating spam, the end user still recieves it and has to deal
with it. Also, it does not address the main issue about spam and
that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the Internet
by it. All this seems to do is sort it at the recieving end.
I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from
the server, this is just an adaptation of challange response.
It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their own
mail servers.
Can you clear any of these problems up?
Mark McCarron.
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM
> > > > To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for
> > consent-based system
> > > > as per
> > > > charter:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20
filter incoming=20
> > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs,
> > and are not
> > > > mandated.
> > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20
from banning=20
> > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML.
> > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a
> > > > whitelist of trusted
> > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of
> > > > unknown senders.
> > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to
> > > > the bulk folder,
> > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or
> > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email
addresses
> > > > of trusted senders,
> > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features
> > > > such as digital
> > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc.
> > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such
> > > > email from
> > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the
> > > > inbox unless
> > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon
> > > > receiving a
> > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender.
> > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as
> > > > email coming
> > > > from known open relays is blocked.
> > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored
hashed or
> > > > encrypted to
> > > > protect privacy.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Yakov
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, (continued)
- RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
- RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Peter Kay
- [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Mark McCarron
- Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
- [Asrg] Consent proposal, gep2
- Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
- Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
- Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
- Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal, Yakov Shafranovich
|
|
|