ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject

2008-07-28 15:49:20
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:13:42 +0200
"Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

<ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:

you appears to be complaining that the definition given
in this RFC in fact agrees with yours, perhaps modulo
emphasizing that the intent is to hurt the person whose
address is forged.

Another attempt:  "Joe Jobs" are about hurting an alleged
sender, not about spamming.  Joe Jobs are relatively rare. 

Forged return-paths are standard operation in spam, they
are about spamming.  The backscatter is not the intention.

Somebody who gets tons of backscatter likely doesn't care
if that was intentional or not, because (s)he's annoyed.

Nevertheless using the term "Joe Job" is a distraction,
because it is about a limited problem, unlike the global
problem with the name "backscatter".


Sorry -- I'm with Ned on this one.  Joe Jobs are Joe Jobs; the intent
isn't important.  Backscatter is an effect of the technique; it isn't
the act itself.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf