ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: paralysis

2004-03-06 11:08:45
From: Michael Thomas <mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>

...
So... instead of pointing out the obvious that
there is no silver bullet, wouldn't it be a lot
more productive to frame this debate in terms of
what incremental steps could be taken to at least
try to change the overall climate? To perhaps move
things in a direction that might be in our favor?
To perhaps be open to making some mistakes and/or
no-ops?

Am I interfering with incremental debate framing, climate changing, or
designing, implementing, testing, and deploying possible solutions that
might be mistakes and no-ops?  I hope not and I don't think so.  In about
1997 Paul Vixie mentioned the notion of spam checksum clearinghouses.
I pointed out the obvious problems, but 6 or 9 months later hacked a
form of the idea into sendmail.  The DCC is now resisting about
350,000,000 spam/week.  When I heard about greylisting, I pointed out
some obvious problems, but worked hard to add it to the DCC client code.

That a problem seriously wants a solution does not imply that it has
one.  That personal immortality, matter transmission, and communicating
consent to receive mail sound nice does not imply that they are possible
or that they would solve more problems than they would create.  Either
way, lists of problems from wet bankets like me should not stop anyone
from designing, implementing, testing and deploying, unless they need
to sell a lot of stock beforehand.


We know spammers are smart and adaptable. The
problem is that in our paralysis, we are not.

Whose paralysis do you mean, Kemo Sabe?  Outside the mass media, mailing
lists, and usenet, plenty is being done about spam.  Some efforts have
been more effective than others.  Others such as laws have more future
hope than past performance.  Filter effectiveness above 95% is common.
Reasonably spam free mailboxes that are open to mail from perfect strangers
are more readily available today then they were 3 years ago.  Nothing
so far have been or will be a silver bullet.  Unless you believe vague
handwaving or swallow any of several brands of patent medicine, there is
no prospect of a FUSSP (Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem).

By itself, framing debates is not productive unless you're only
interested in debates.  Few of those who do more talking and writing
about spam than administrating anti-spam mechanisms, designing, writing
or deploying code, enforcing laws, or anything else that directly
affects spam in more than their personal mailboxes are contributing
to solutions.


Vernon Schryver    vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>