On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:53:36PM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote
Paul Judge <paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com> wrote:
I did not see his message suggesting that this was a solution to
the 'global problem' of spam.
I agree.
My point was more that local band-aids help, but only for short
periods of time. Everyone on ASRG should already know this. If the
band-aids were *permanently* effective, then ASRG would be unnecessary.
A permanently effective solution simply doesn't exist. It implies a
static problem. Spammers adapt their tactics to whatever defenses we
evolve. The best defense is a multi-faceted one. Anybody who reads
comp.risks should be familiar with the concept of multiple redundancy
for systems, so that the failure of one portion doesn't shut down
everything.
Adopting "the one true global spam solution" risks everybody being
mailbombed with ads when a hole is found in that one solution. A lot of
different "local band-aids" are less likely to fail simultaneously. And
if we use what the military refers to as "defense in depth", the failure
of one component will merely cause other components to trap more spam.
The mission of ASRG should be to keep coming up with new anti-spam
strategies as the old ones are circumvented.
--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg