Jonathan M. Gardner wrote of "AccuSpam":
Even the simplest concepts such as "increasing the cost of spam will end
spam" are lost on him
Fridrik Skulason wrote:
Actually, it is not quite that simple - this "simple concept" assumes that
the cost will be born by the spammer, but that is just not the case.
Just consider the bot spam distribution networks. Guess who will pay
the extra cost? The spammer or the people actually owning the compromised
machines.
Why should the spammer care about extra cost if that cost lands on
somebody else?
Let's not mix apples and lemons. We are talking about SPF. How are the costs
of bandwidth relevant to the costs that SPF imposes on spammers (i.e.
throw-away domains)?
Do you really think Johnathan was saying that "increasing the costs of spam
[for unrelated third-party zombies] will end spam"? Just a guess, but using
my own little noodle, I'd bet he was saying that "increasing the costs of
spam [on spammers themselves] will end spam". But, that's just an educated
guess.
In any case, the main point was lost in this misplaced nit-picking. Jonathan
M. Gardner wrote:
I encourage people to stop replying to AccuSpam.
To which, I whole-heartedly agree. He's abusing both the SPF-discuss and
IETF-marid lists.
Michael R. Brumm