Fridrik Skulason <frisk(_at_)f-prot(_dot_)com> wrote:
If LMAP (or something like that) gets adopted, spammers will change their
strategy to stay in business. One of the strategies not affected by
LMAP is the use of compromised machines - therefore I fear that we will
see an increase in their use in the future.
Too bad.
Nice to see how concerned you are about security.
I'm concerned about *my* security. If someone else chooses to run
insecure machines, that's their problem. I don't care, so long as it
doesn't affect me.
If wide-spread deployment of LMAP results in many insecure systems
being exploited, I don't see why that's anyone's problem, but the
admins of the insecure systems.
I am not arguing that something like LMAP should not be
implemented....quite the contrary - I would love to see something
like that widely adopted. All I am saying is that by itself, it may
not have much effect on the overall spam volume - the spammers will
switch to other methods, and to handle those we need different
solutions.
Which is what I've been saying all along, and which is why I'm
proposing LMAP.
The point is that if we can force spammers to engage solely in
illegal behaviour to send spam, then solutions *other* than technical
ones start being more useful.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg