John,
ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
OK, so let me see if I have this straight. You're claiming that
something we write into a standard is going to change future spammer
behavior in a good and predictable way? I'm afraid I just don't buy it.
No, of course not. It's going to change the way that MTAs are set up which
will make it harder for spammers to abuse.
John is making a nicely affirmative assertion. Clear and to the point.
However some of us don't see it as obviously correct and, in fact, doubt it's
true.
That creates a need for a very clear and compelling explanation that a) it
really is true, and b) it's impact will justify changing a long-standing core
design feature of Internet mail operations. One that will actually make some
administration of email operations markedly more difficult.
As you know, far better than most, a belief in what will alter spammer's impact
is rarely never correct. And even when it is correct, it has never yet reduced
the amount of global spam.
Well, of course. The goal here is to specify something for the legit
operators to follow that will narrow the range for abuse by bad guys.
No, that isn't the goal at all. The goal is to get a revision to a
specification published that is suitable for a move to draft.
...
This really isn't open for debate.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net