Vernon Schryver wrote:
I've been compiling a list in the style of Jeff Foxworthy.
You Might Be An Anti-Spam Kook If
Please publish this as an RFC. A collection of unworkable approaches
to the spam problem (anti-spam anti-patterns) is useful knowledge that
should be preserved and promulgated to reduce the Anti-Spam Kook
problem.
On the other hand there seems to be considerable interest into
declaring the spam problem unsolvable.
I don't think it's a good idea
to lend credibility to this sentiment by publishing it as an RFC.
How hard is it to agree that:
a) there will always be (some) spam
b) there is no need for it to be 50% of all mail
I agree.
On the other hand there seems to be considerable interest into
declaring the spam problem unsolvable.
Amazing that Vernon says working on spam is "Kook"y, yet that is exactly what
he does (DCC).
Vernon has pretended he is an expert with this thread, with an obvious timing
of condescending the serious anti-spam thread I started:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22035.html
Some disinteresting things Vernon emailed directly to me in past, which imho
demonstrate he is not an expert and/or he qualifies for his own "Kook" test:
1. Vernon apparently got offended because I pointed out that he didn't realize
that MD5 checksum on IPv4 was easily breakable via dictionary attack or that
his use of it went his often public stated condescending policy of "do not
implement half-solutions".
2. Vernon wrote, "...it is impossible, because no two people (or at least
organizations) think the same streams of bulk mail are solicited and
unsolicited.". I can easily find 2 streams that 2 people/orgs can agree are
solicited and unsolicited. If you give me 2 streams and 2 people/org at
random, then I can not guarantee every time (but eventually and never
impossible), but he said "no" which is always false and certainly never
impossible. That just shows you the kind of errors he makes with his logic.
3. Vernon wrote, "In the last couple of months, more than one person has
invented a super duper wonderful perfect foolproof mechanism of using IP
addresses collected by the DCC.". "Forgive me, but I doubt your scheme differs
significantly from the others.". Isn't the desire to discover part of what
makes a scientist an expert? When we stop discovering and learning, then we
decay.
4. "A fundamental problem is that spam is unsolicited bulk mail, and not IP
addresses...no mater how highly coorelated with spam.". The first part is
true, the second part is not because we don't live in 3 dimensions. I will not
tell you why beyond that, but I know why.
5. "The DCC is doing quite well, thank you very much, against the current
plague, but the main event is to come.". Wonder what he means by "main event
is to come"?
6. "consider me a hopeless, useless, paranoid skeptic with an insurmountable
not-invented-here syndrome, and stop sending me mail"
Shelby Moore
http://AntiViotic.com