Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
I believe that Fridrik was pointing out a simple fact - any effective
anti-spam solutions would force spammers to seek other venues, including
the increased use of hijacked computers.
Yes, but it was leaning towards being biased against a solution,
because of the change in cost. To quote him again:
In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a
good thing)
That's nice...
would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad
thing)
Absolutely not. I could argue just as well that it's a Good Thing,
because it now gives the admins & programmers incentive to fix their
systems.
We already KNOW those machines may be compromised. We already KNOW
that changing the cost/benefit ratio for one behaviour will make
others more appealing. It makes no sense to even insinuate that
deploying a solution has negative effects on pre-existing broken
systems. It's false logic.
I'm sensitive to negativity about any proposal (more so for LMAP),
because of the history in ASRG of nonsensical, irrelevant, false, and
contradictory reasons people have used to oppose any proposal.
The deployment, or not, of a proposal makes zero difference as to
the ability to compromise those machines. Therefore, that risk should
have ZERO INFLUENCE on the decision to deploy that proposal. Anyone
who claims that such risks should influence the deployment decision
looks to me like they have an agenda to prevent that deployment.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg