Re: [Asrg] VPNs

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Wed, 08 July 2009 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24763A6B72 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60DcHTN3zayT for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011EB28C102 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.37.dsl.charm.net [207.114.17.37]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n68EHqEd020809 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n68ECUdX025145 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:12:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n68EHlSs003332 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:17:47 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n68EHl42003329 for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:17:47 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:17:47 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: asrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20090708141747.GA2822@gsp.org>
References: <20090623213728.1825.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4A41D773.50508@telmon.org> <4A41E506.2010106@mines-paristech.fr> <20090624160052.B5DC62428A@panix5.panix.com> <4A426B9D.7090901@mines-paristech.fr> <4A43618A.6000205@tana.it> <4A4F7DD0.4040404@billmail.scconsult.com> <4A51D35E.70306@tana.it> <4A52C36D.6040207@billmail.scconsult.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A52C36D.6040207@billmail.scconsult.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] VPNs
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:09:14 -0000

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:39:25PM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> The overwhelming majority of mail I am offered by the Gmail outbounds is  
> spam. Google has played games with how they will accept abuse reports,  
> giving the appearance of not really wanting them.

Fully agreed.

> Large cheap and free mail providers understand the advantage they get 
> from their scale in not needing to do as well with egress filtering as 
> smaller mixed sources of mail. There is very little risk to them of 
> missing 95% of their outbound spam, as long as they never drop legitimate 
> outbound mail and keep their outbound legitimate mail volume large enough 
> that it is hard for many sites to treat their mail as presumptive spam.

And this in a nutshell is why so many "accountability" proposals,
while curious/interesting academic exercises, are dead-on-arrival in
the real world: these providers are TBTB (too big to block), they know
it, and so no matter how many different technologies are deployed which
repeatedly tell us what we've already known for years (e.g. "Hotmail sends
enormous quantities of spam") nothing useful will happen as a result --
until/unless widespread refusal of traffic comes into play.

---Rsk