Re: [Asrg] Too Big to Block?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 09 July 2009 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 A670B3A6C57 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.997, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 kQn3AUGCcqgg for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33A43A683A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 ale@tana.it, TLS: TLS1.0, 256bits, RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with esmtp; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:40:17 +0200 id 00000000005DC034.000000004A560F61.00000839
Message-ID: <4A560F61.6020104@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:40:17 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <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> <20090708141747.GA2822@gsp.org> <20090708155704.GN15652@verdi> <20090709120305.GC26436@gsp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090709120305.GC26436@gsp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Too Big to Block?
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:40:05 -0000

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> In other words: we do not need any new mechanisms.  We do not need 
> reputation services, or vouching services, or any of the other interesting 
> ideas that have been put forth.  We need to use the mechanisms we already 
> have, and have had for some time.

I agree that mechanisms cannot do any good if they are not used. 
However, to forbid any new mechanism until existing ones won't have 
taken root may be exceedingly harsh.

>  The days when we could expect network
> and system administrators to care about the abuse emanating from their 
> operations because it was clearly their highest responsibility and ethical 
> obligation have been gone for a long time.  (Some still do, of course -- 
> and good for them.)  The priority now is profit, profit, profit, and 
> thus it is necessary to speak to them in a language they understand.

If we were able to highlight differences so as to improve competition, 
that would be understandable in those terms. But that requires a user 
base that is sensible to those arguments. IMHO, it is not much the gap 
between profit and ethics --different scale of planning horizon-- as 
the average user's ability to appreciate the quality of mail services, 
that has degraded them.

Perhaps, we should think of ways to make mechanisms visible to end users?