Re: [Asrg] An "ideal" false positive (TMGRS take 2)

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Fri, 29 January 2010 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 219C93A682A for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:33:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 uJ0CmXvJPAQk for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk (karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171A33A67D3 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:60273) by karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KX0J4K-000I57-CE for asrg@irtf.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:33:56 +0000
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:33:56 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <FBFC96085D5112AA96E23D0F@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20100129135607.GB27203@gsp.org>
References: <4B61D1BA.6060807@tana.it> <20100129135607.GB27203@gsp.org>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01X6lpK8gK15CgFr2Ny8/SHtyexSGKhcLP1BQ=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] An "ideal" false positive (TMGRS take 2)
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:33:46 -0000

--On 29 January 2010 08:56:07 -0500 Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:04:42PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> Alice reports as spam a message from Bob, either by mistake or out
>> of curiosity.
>
> But there is no way to know that Alice actually filed the report
> or that Bob actually sent the message.
>
> If either Alice's or Bob's system is a zombie, which -- if they're
> running Windows -- already has a two-digit percentage probability which
> has been monotonically increasing for most of a decade -- then there is
> no way for any external observer to distinguish between:

So, does that mean that all computer mediated communication is pointless?

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/