[ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter
2004-10-04 07:23:15
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 09:01, Seth Goodman wrote:
The question at hand, IMHO, is how does a per-message callback validation
scheme compare to other validation methods. Even with something as light as
CSV, a spammer that HELO's with your domain name will generate a DNS request
to your nameserver if it is not in the recipient's cache. I think the
answer is not as simple as any of us have been implying. Let's try and
consider the total transaction cost of various approaches and who bears
those costs. As you point out below, putting all the validation load on the
recipient has it's weaknesses, they are just different ones.
Ideally something that balances out the cost between sending and
receiving. Of course we don't live in an ideal world and this is most
certainly not the ideal Internet nor are we dealing with any ideal
protocol. So.... since we're all here because we're sick and tired of
spam it seems to me that in spite of cost, we should really be putting
focus on just what actually works 100% (bear with me here, nothing is
perfect but technically speaking and social engineering aside...) and
then how closely we can attain that 100% keeping within acceptable cost.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
^ ( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|+|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-clear/attachments/20041004/d01d6974/attachment.bin
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, (continued)
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, James Couzens
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, Tony Finch
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, James Couzens
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, Tony Finch
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, James Couzens
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, John Glube
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter, Seth Goodman
- [ietf-clear] No callbacks, please, was Re. CLEAR Charter,
James Couzens <=
- [ietf-clear] Re. CLEAR Charter (Forwarded At Request), John Glube
- [ietf-clear] Re. CLEAR Charter (Forwarded At Request), Douglas Otis
- [ietf-clear] Re. CLEAR Charter, Dave Crocker
- [ietf-clear] Re. CLEAR Charter, Douglas Otis
- [ietf-clear] Re. CLEAR Charter, Dave Crocker
- [ietf-clear] Re. CLEAR Charter, Douglas Otis
- [ietf-clear] Accreditation and Reputation, John Leslie
- [ietf-clear] Accreditation and Reputation, Dave Crocker
- [ietf-clear] Accreditation and Reputation, Douglas Otis
- [ietf-clear] Accreditation and Reputation, Dave Crocker
|
|
|