Hi,
Thanks for your comment.
Content-filtering is effective for anti-spam/spim (unsolicited bulk
instant messages), but unfornately not for unsolicited bulk calls,
because the call cannot be analyzed before the user answers it, as
mentioned in a SIPPING draft, draft-ietf-sipping-spam-00.txt.
Also, the number of my friends and their friends whose machines have
been converted to spambots is very low.
We understand our propsal is not a perfect solution. However, there is
no single technique that can solve all spam problems.
Regards,
Kumiko
At 15:17 2005/07/15, gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:
[quote]
Henning and I wrote up the I-D that proposes a mechanism to find friends
-of-friends and trusted domains, which could be used as a tool to make
white-list for filtering emails/calls.
We could not find any WG in the IETF that this draft belongs to, but we
believe this RG might be interested in this draft.
Any comments are welcome.
Title : Trust Path Discovery
Author(s) : K. Ono, H. Schulzrinne
Filename : draft-ono-trust-path-discovery-00.txt
Pages : 14
Date : 2005-7-12
Chained or transitive trust can be used to determine whether incoming
communication is likely to be desirable or not. We can build a
chained trust relationship by introducing friends to out friends, for
example. We propose mechanisms for discovering trust paths and
binary responsive trustworthiness. The trust paths are based on a
chain of trust relationships between users, a user and a domain, and
domains. We apply this model to relatively low-value trust
establishment, suitable for deciding whether to accept communication
requests such as emails, calls, or instant messages from strangers.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ono-trust-path-discovery-00.txt
[end quote]
None of these really work for spam protection, for the simple reason that all
it
takes is for a "reputed/trusted" machine to be taken over by a spambot zombie
and then you start getting a flood of "trusted" spam.
I recently read on another list that something like 84% of the spam one group
received (that HAD SPF 'protection') was in fact spam...! Of course, I've
been
pointing out for more than a year that SPF is stupid because it plain and
simple
DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM it's being proposed to solve.
I really think it's shameful for these people to claim that these schemes are
suitable for preventing or controlling spam when in fact they do little or
nothing at all towards that goal. :-(
And, again, many of us have a legitimate need to receive unsolicited (or at
least unexpected) E-mails from folks who will will not have on any kind of
whitelist. What I like about MY proposal is that it's content-specific... I
am
willing to accept more advanced forms of mail from specific people, depending
on
who they are; but I'm willing to accept (subject to it passing approval by an
additional antispam content filter, of course) at least a restricted subset of
mail features in a preliminary contact, and that from just about anybody.
Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support free and fair US elections! http://stickers.defend-democracy.org
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
_______________________________________________
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