Indeed,
Additionally, the issue of hijacked systems IMHO is in fact at the far edges or
even outside the realm of system activity which a 'global anti-spam' system
could hope to address. Though methods of introduction of spam into the MTS is
a serious issue, only if an MTS edge system were required to consult a human
actor before submitting messages could this issue be comprehensively addressed
(this is a cursory argument on this consideration). If the edge system could
be forced to require this behavior that could be considered a 'feature' and
marketed accordingly, but not a per se 'global anti-spam' solution.
-e
On Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:37 PM, Bob Wyman [SMTP:bob(_at_)wyman(_dot_)us]
wrote:
Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Should the following be part of the requirements:
"Proposals must address issues of hijacked
computers used for sending spam."
No. This should not be a requirement for *all* proposals since
not all proposals rely on any particular knowledge of source server. On
the other hand, proposals which rely on knowledge of source servers
*should* address the issue of hijacked machines.
Undoubtedly, one of the objectives of research should be to
determine what, if any, unique problems are introduced by the use of
hijacked machines. However, the understanding that results from this
research will only be applicable to a subset of all of the various
mechanisms that may contribute to a reduction of spam.
bob wyman
_______________________________________________
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