Keith Moore wrote:
this is not a way to make the network more robust.
Robust for what? Spammers? The simple fact of the matter is that the
alternative is to just shut down port 25 given the growth in both volume
and complexity to filter. That ain't robust either. Dealing with false
positives is the cost of doing business on the internet these days.
Welcome
to reality.
people who cite "reality" generally do so because they lack
justification for their statements.
The thing is, Keith, I don't lack justification. I've seen the numbers with
my own eyes in our own largish organization with an IT staff that's
super paranoid about about false positives (free clue: guess who some of
our customers undoubtedly are?)
find a way to make reputation servers accountable to both sender and
recipient, then we can talk about robustness. until then, they're just
another form of DoS attack.
Attacking people in the field as "DoS attackers" who are just trying to
get by given the escalating onslaught is... something. In that Cluepon
short of a Happy Meal kind of way.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf