Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal

Seth <sethb@panix.com> Tue, 23 June 2009 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sethb@panix.com>
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 B3BFB3A6A0B for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, 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 83B2UbM0MX+9 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CE73A6956 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83D5392AC for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 756) id CABAC24289; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Seth <sethb@panix.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-reply-to: <4A40B2C0.8090604@telmon.org> (message from Claudio Telmon on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:47:28 +0200)
References: <4A3DFC91.2090506@telmon.org> <4A3F9B2B.8020603@tana.it> <4A3FF3AF.9030401@telmon.org> <4A3FF7F1.1060705@nd.edu> <4A3FFB64.6030409@telmon.org> <20090622215251.GA2137@gsp.org> <4A400246.9060103@telmon.org> <20090623100542.GA9628@gsp.org> <4A40B2C0.8090604@telmon.org>
Message-Id: <20090623133941.CABAC24289@panix5.panix.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal
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: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:39:26 -0000

Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org> wrote:

> While what you say is true in general, I think you missed a critical
> part of the consent framework I'm proposing. A consent-enabled
> address will only accept messages from senders that received a valid
> token for that address though some channel (usually, not
> email). That is, each sender will only have tokens for
> consent-enabled addresses he received a token for, which is
> comparable to the number of addresses he has in his address book. If
> the sender's system is compromised, the attacker/spammer will only
> collect tokens for these addresses.

What benefit does that offer over using tagged addresses (with the tag
as the "consent token")?  I do that now, for commercial mailers; when
an address starts getting spammed, I turn it off.  Sometimes, I give
the company that got it a new address to use.

Seth