New incompatible Tricks promotes change
Change promotes chaos which strives for equilibrium which instigates a
new round of survival of the fittest, deviation and imperfection, thus
the cycle begins again.
Trick XYZ requires change like any other trick. If change is what we
want, IMO your particular trick no longer applies - there are by far
more simpler solutions.
SMTP v3.0 needs registration and enforcement ideas. Thats all - two
fundamental ideas that we are very careful not to revisit again.
What we have today is akin to a filtration by osmosis process. If you
don't fit a certain size or shape, you are filtered. In an organic
world, those filtered can adapt to the attributes required.
The typical problem is that the osmosis filters get clogged up which can
increase pressures and slowing down the flow rates.
One typical solution is to use special desirable chemical/DNA markings
that can be detected thus allowing for an infinity, chemical or
electro-magnetism based separation.
This allows for multiple streams of osmosis filters: One group for
special DNS markings and another group for the rest.
Of course, in a living organic world, adaptation with the DNA markings
are possible, so now we institute a control process for the the feed
containing DNA markings.
To help accelerate the process, only special DNA markings will be used
which are compatible with our special, trade secret, catalyst injections
which the DNA has an affinity changing their DNA state to one of
higher quality offering even better filtration by osmosis.
I knew I can apply my old chemical engineering training for something :-)
Hector Santos, CTO
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007, at 6:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This type of reasoning is exactly the reason why some of us are
skeptical about greylisting and any other technique that works well
only if it is used by sufficiently few people. If it starts being
used enough, the spammers have the incentive to figure out how to
simulate the behavior that gets past the traps and then, sooner or
later, it isn't worth bothering with. The skepticism leads some of us
to wander away from conversations about how wonderfully effective the
technique while muttering "arms race". Others wander off in a
slightly different directions muttering "making the bad guys smarter
is really not a good strategy"
At least the first of those sources of muttering noises does not
suggest that you shouldn't use a method that works for you as long as
it does work for you (others might disagree about that). It does mean,
I think, that you should be somewhat careful about praising the method
to others or assuming that it will last forever. And then there is
the part I worry about most, which is that we will make basic changes
to the email protocols in order to make things work better, for a
short time, for these relatively short-life-expectancy techniques.
SMTP's inability to reliably identify where a message originated has
caused inordinate reliance on content filtering. While at first,
content filtering had been fairly effective, this in turn has caused
spammers to improve their obfuscation techniques at a rate that has
become impractical for receivers to match with resources.
For each direct source of spam, there are 4 sources of spam emerging
from tens of millions of MTAs as DSNs. The abuse of DSNs is seriously
eroding email's integrity.
Few MTAs can operate and accept message for all recipients. The
inability for MTAs to handle all possible traffic exposes valid
recipients to being discovered.
Providers of domain names, IP addresses, or certificates have a conflict
of interest, and are unable to prevent access to spammers.
SMTP can not even mandate the use of an MX record to avoid searching for
Reputation assessments of the last hop IP address is causing spammers to
merge their traffic with other domains. Often this merging is
accomplished through compromised residential systems. The doubling rate
is at six months, quickly making last hop reputation assessments less
While DKIM attempts to provide essential transport information, it is
also prone to replay abuse and employs public key cryptography where
sign-once / send-many gives transmitters a resource advantage.
Grey-listing does not afford any long term strategy. However, the use
of temp errors can help avoid a complete denial of service as a triage
strategy for limited receiver resources. Reputation is then used to
establish priority. Processing undesired messages can exceed 99% at
very high volumes. This is not how the Internet should work. A basic
change to SMTP is needed to shift the burden toward the transmitter.
Greylisting increases the number of transactions per message, so
ultimately, this is headed in the wrong direction.
The TBR reference exchange can be done within a single transaction. The
transmitter is required to hold messages until the receiver is ready.
With a high level of source granularity, message origination reputation
should be able match the transmitter's level of abuse and not breed
super spam. References can be retained for a period of time, where
abuse pattern can be detected and used to silently expunge abusive sources.