ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses

2004-02-11 04:04:07
Seth Breidbart <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
So you're looking for a way to distinguish spam from non-spam prior to
receiving the message?  It can't be done.  Period.

  It can't be done perfectly.  But it can be done better than we do it
now.

  Please don't go down the path of "we shouldn't do it until we can do
it perfectly, but we know we can't do it perfectly, so we shouldn't
even start."  It's dated and tiring.

Do you know the difference between "spam" and "forgery"?

  Do you know how I can tell?  The answer is I can't.  So all forged
messages appear to be spam.

  I could swear there's an echo in here.

 As the recipient *I* don't know that such forged messages aren't
spam.

*You* apparently don't even know that such non-forged messages aren't
forged.

  They look forged to me.  But you're telling me on a mailing list
"Hey, trust me!".  I couldn't describe how little impact that has on
my MTA.

  Your comments are irrelevant to the only relevant subject: how can
MTA's make this determination.  You're stuck on the concept that it
*can* be made, and are studiously avoiding any kind of rational
discussion on *how*.

That's right.  All that I'm objecting to is your _mischaracterizing_
what is being done as "forgery".

  Once again for the terminally clueless: If I can't tell it isn't
forged, it's forged.

How do you trust _any other_ sender?

  My toys, my rules.  I trust certain domains, and my MTA checks that
mail allegedly from those domains really comes from a machine known to
those domains.

  This solution doesn't scale.  I want a solution that scales.  You
want to talk about anything but how to implement something we can use.

  Thanks for trying, but I don't see any point in continuing this
conversation.

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg