Re: [ietf-smtp] IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP v

S Moonesamy writes:

> Hi Sam,
>
> There is a (IRTF) RFC which has the following text: "rise of spam and other  
> anti-social behavior ..."  I did a search of the IETF mailing list archives  
> for other discussions of the topic.  I could not find anything significant  
> using the IETF search engine.  I couldn't use a well-known search engine for  
> the search as, some time back, the IETF blocked the search engine from  
> indexing its mailing list.  Anyway, from what I remember of IETF-related  
> discussions, spam used to be describe as a social problem.
It is true that spam is anti-social behavior. But…

> A technical mechanism used by the IETF to curtail spam spurred this thread.   
> I gather that there is agreement that technical approaches are being used to  
> curtail spam.  However, the merits of the different approaches are debatable.
… notice that all these "different approaches" are technical in nature.  
Socially wagging one's finger at a spammer – "don't you dare do it  
again" – has not worked very well. So, we've all been trying various  
technical solutions. Blacklists. CBVs. Various kinds of HELO checks. DMARC,  
SPF and various other kinds of authentication schemes.
These were all various technical attempts to solve them problem. They  
offered some relief, but noone can claim that they effectively addressed the  
problem. But they were all technical attempts, so I see spam as a technical  
problem to solve.
But whether spam is a technical or a social problem I don't really see that,  
in itself, as being very important in the grand scheme of things. My only  
point is that any headway on spam will involve a technical fix. Not a social  
fix. Or a legal fix.
> I noticed the following in an email: "Authentication-Results: [removed];  
> dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tpcoms.vn header.i=@tpcoms.vn".  There is  
> a PTR RR for the IP address from which the message was sent.  The author of  
> the message has the same name as a government official in .cz.  My guess is  
> that it was a phishing attempt.  It would be very difficult to prove that  
> without additional information, and that may require taking a legal approach.
Well, lots of luck to anyone planning to pursue a legal approach in … 
Vietnam, on the account of your email.
> There are countries which have enacted laws [1] related to email.  A few
And what tangible impact have these laws had, anywhere?

> weeks ago, I had a conversation with a group of legislators who were  
> interested in that topic.  It is useful to have such laws instead of leaving  
> email as an undefined space [2].
Useful in which way, exactly? All of these laws, that have either been  
enacted or proposed, they're all typically the same in spirit, and only  
differ in secondary characteristics.
Again, someone please show me some objective data that the CAN SPAM act of  
2003 has produced, in terms of reduction of spam, and then I'll consider  
giving any weight to any legal or legislative course of action.

pgpFUvvfRIUoA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp