Re: [Asrg] Willfull and intentional misunderstandings

[Damian Gerow <[e-mail]>]

Thus spake Dave Crocker ([e-mail]) [06/05/03 18:29]:
> Have you been reading the posts?

Did you read my initial post?  Yes.  I have been trying to keep up, I just
haven't had the time to contribute as of yet.

> The big question about removing spoofing is:  so what?

Ask that to the spammers.  And while you're at it, ask them why they spoof
in the first place.

> And hearing that we have removed "something valuable" from the spammers
> is no comfort to recipients who continue to get inundated with spam.
> 
> Proposals to control spam need to worry about reducing it, not making it
> more pristine.

Making it more pristine (though I disagree with the terminology) makes it
easier to track.

At the very least, it gives you a concrete domain whom you can report abuse
reports to, or to their upstreams, or, with this domain, you can blacklist.

RMX does not directly block spam.  It blocks one of the avenues used by
spammers.  The more avenues we whittle down, the harder it becomes to spam.
The harder it is to spam, the less likely a spammer will continue
(especially if they're less technically inclined).

Look, I've been following your posts.  You complain that it doesn't reduce
spam, yet you don't reply to the posts that address your concerns, or ask
you pointed questions.  Until I see a semi-concrete line of reasoning from
your address as to why RMX will contribute nothing to the battle against
spam, I just can't take you seriously.  If you wish to continue debating, do
everyone here a favour, and lay our your reasoning, from square one, so
that we can understand your objections.  As of right now, I do not.  And I'm
sure I'm not the only one.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg