On 9/20/2010 7:33 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
"do not worry...they've subscribed"
->
"have not produced a broad requirement for enhanced list performance of spam
filtering."
Sorry, I don't understand what that phrase is supposed to mean. Enhanced how?
Better than is generally being done now.
3. The most common way for spam to get into a list in recent years is for
a subscriber's account to be stolen by a spammer who sends spam to
addresses in the account's address book.
I've no idea what the substantiation for this assertion. It well might be
true, but I'm not seeing how it is relevant to any topic of the working
group.
I'm describing what I've seen on the lists I manage and the lists I subscribe
to.
Lousy sampling methodology. And getting folks on this to agree with something
based on the methodology has nothing to do with providing serious
substantiation.
It may not be statistically significant, but it's what I've got.
You are confusing data with information. It's pretending that one person's
experience is meaningful for making generalizations. It isn't. Ever.
If spam comes from subscribers rather than from bad guys trying to impersonate
them, there's no benefit from extra mechanism to keep out the nonexistent
impersonators.
ack.
(There is also likely to be a huge difference between lists that restrict
posting rights and those that don't.)
Well, there's another reality check:
4. Most (nearly all?) lists restrict posting to addresses known to the list
software, such as list subscribers. Mail from other addresses is typically
either rejected or sent for manual handling by the list manager.
Again, you are offering a reasonable hypothesis in the form of an
unsubstantiated conclusion.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html