spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Great stuff

2004-01-06 14:57:16
R. Scott Perry wrote:


I can't wait until everyone fixes SMTP everywhere so I don't have to resort to challenge/response spam killing like I do now.


*Please* do not use C/R!

My holy-war sense is tingling.

While it is extremely effective in reducing spam *you* see, it also has a very high false positive rate, and other problems. Problems often seen in C/R systems include:

Depends what you mean by "false positive" I suppose - I've only received one peice of spam since using installing TMDA (http://tmda.net), and only had one real user who couldn't figure out how to get through.

Please note that I'm not asking you to use it, I didn't even say that I like using it or that it's a good idea, but I by my definition it creates less false-positives than any sort of content-filtering and hopefully makes spamming less effective in general, hopefully discouraging spammers.

[1] You end up being a spammer (the majority of spam sent to you will result in confirmation requests being sent to innocent victims)

On the off chance that a spammer puts in a "real" address in the envelope sender (I think they usually just generate random strings), this is true. However, I feel that this is seldom and using SPF should reduce this.

Also, if you say that a bounce is spam, I suppose all MTAs are guilty of this, really, and only SPF can save us :)

[2] Spammers now send pretend confirmation requests, presumably to make people less likely to respond to C/R requests

This doesn't work with TMDA because TMDA's confirmations are cryptographically secure, so they cannot be faked. Fake confirmations are challenged again.

[3] Many people respond to C/R requests that they never initiated

I don't understand exactly what you mean, but if you are referring to [1] above, this has happened exactly once, and it was because of a mis-configured MTA which sent a bounce to my reply-to address instead of the envelope sender.

[4] C/R companies have been known to send out spam and harvest addresses of people sending to their customers, and apparently sell those addressses to spammers

TMDA is not a company, it is a peice of software. If other companies sell addresses to spammers, wouldn't those spammers just get caught by the C/R again anyway?

[5] The C/R system is patented, so most anti-spam programs using C/R have legal liabilities waiting to be ironed out

I am not bothered by this. There is probably well-documented open-source prior art which may shut down any real legal problems. If not I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

[6] Confirmations sent to mailing lists won't work

Not entirely true - TMDA has facilities for this, including sender-specific tagged addresses which bypass the challenges entirely, for more details, see http://tmda.net/faq.cgi?req=show&file=faq04.008.htp

It's quite easy.

[7] Confirmations sent to others using C/R cause problems

Again, TMDA covers most eventualities, see the TMDA FAQ http://tmda.net/faq.cgi?req=show&file=faq04.012.htp and http://www.tmda.net/config-client.html (the section about X-TMDA header).

[8] People like me that offer a free service (helping people with DNS) end up losing money (by spending time investigating and responding to C/R systems, dealing with spam received as a result, etc.) and sometimes get fed up with C/R systems and eventually stop offering free advice (never knowing how many people won't get it), harming everybody.

I'm not sure of your context here... Do you mean that you've decided that giving free advice has become too costly for you because of all the extra time you spend responding to challenges and sorting through bad challenges from spammers forging your address?

I'd say if the people you're trying to respond to aren't courteous enough to put you on their whitelist before they send you their help request, or if they don't provide an easy way for you to reply to their message and not be challenged (like detailed for TMDA in http://tmda.net/faq.cgi?req=show&file=faq05.005.htp), they don't deserve your free help.

For example, if I sent you an email asking for your help, expecting a single reply, my reply-to address would automatically be a date-limited tagged address which would go straight through to me from you if you replied to my message within 14 days of me sending it, so you wouldn't be hassled by my C/R solution at all. If I expected that my request to you would be an exchange of emails off and on over a long period of time, I'd put you on my whitelist and you'd never see my C/R system ever. Anything else is just rude and a discourteous use of C/R.

Challenges should only be sent to people you don't know already who are trying to contact you for the first time. Since then it would be you trying to contact me for the first time, I don't think it's too much to ask you to prove your identity to me by clicking "reply" once.

[9] Legitimate E-mail from automated services won't be seen (such as when ordering products online)

Not true with TMDA - I can either use a time-expired tagged address, whitelist the email address first, or just browse through my pending queue and manually let out automated emails.

In closing, i honestly don't think that C/R is a perfect solution to spam, and I admit that there are some really bad C/R implementations which should be fixed or trashed. I personally believe that TMDA is the best C/R tool out there with very few of the common problems with other C/R's.

I think that fixing SMTP is the only real way to stop spam. Hurrah for SPF, I really hope it catches on! However, as SMTP is still broken, I will continue to use C/R (responsibly, I hope!) and challenge bad C/R users to shape up, and hope that some day either SMTP is fixed or spammers give up.

--
Jim Ramsay

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡


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