I do apologise. my reply was curt and could have been mistaken as personal.
it was not intended to be that way.
to explain
In your statement...
Reasons. As in, none given for pull systems, other than "we think
they'll work". They will work, of course, but whether or not they'll
stop spam is another question.
you raised the point "whether or not they'll stop spam"
I just wanted to make it clear that *pull* is not about "stopping spam"
if it can't be defined how can it be stopped
Many people try define spam as it applies to them
but that is a very opinionated view of what is and what isn't spam, and
should not be the basis of any spam reduction system
No having said that...
The immediate side effect of any pull or origin verification system is those
who hide behind false return addresses will no longer be able to do so.
why do they hide?, so they can't be traced. if they can be they will stop...
till they find another way.
So from a technical point of view this is a never ending story.
just like copy protection on software. you cannot beat the hackers on
technical methods alone.
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Alan
DeKok
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:16 PM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)
"Chris" <asrg(_at_)rebel(_dot_)com(_dot_)au> wrote:
If any in this group thinks they can define spam then I am afraid
they are mistaken other than to say it is indefinable which is
*exactly* what the document states
Then why the heck did you ask me to define it? Preparing for an
attack on a straw man?
Many proposals claim to address the "spam" problem. Fewer define
what the "spam" problem is.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
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