The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement
2004-03-14 03:23:42
On 14-mrt-04, at 2:49, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
This is the IETF - an organization that sets some of the standards for
the Internet. What should the IETF be doing and NOT doing be in the
fight against spam.
Spam is only one example of communication that is desired by the sender
but not the receiver. Port scans and denial of service attacks are two
others.
The current way for a receiver to handle this is to discard the
unwanted communication after receiving it. This is far from ideal as it
doesn't free the receiver from having to receive, but rather adds
insult to injury by forcing the receiver to do even more work and
figure out which communications are legit and which aren't. Malicious
senders then go on to frustrate this process by making their unwanted
communications look like legitimate ones.
What we need here is a fundamentally different approach: one where
desired communication is tagged as such explicitly. This allows
intermediaries to block undesired communication on behalf of the
receiver much closer to the sender, which in turn makes it possible for
a service provider to determine accurately whether a customer is
exhibiting malicious behavior. (And for other service providers to
determine whether a service provider is taking steps against such
customers.)
The unsolved problem here is how to allow enough communication to be
able to set up new "desirability tags" without creating a loophole
that's big enough to invalidate the entire mechanism. This part is
probably easier to do for IP than for email, as with IP there are many
intermediaries (that can't be circumvented) and many individual
packets, while for email intermediaries are largely optional and the
number of messages between any combination of sender and receiver is
low.
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: move to second stage, Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, (continued)
- Re: move to second stage, Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Ed Gerck
- Re: move to second stage, Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: move to second stage, Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Ed Gerck
- Re: move to second stage, Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Eric A. Hall
- Re: move to second stage, Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Dean Anderson
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Dean Anderson
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Yakov Shafranovich
- The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <=
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Paul Vixie
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Nathaniel Borenstein
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Dave Crocker
- Apology Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Nathaniel Borenstein
- Re: Apology Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Dave Crocker
- Re: Apology Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Tom Lord
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Paul Vixie
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Principles of Spam-abatement, Paul Vixie
|
|
|