Re: ADV: (was Re: [Asrg] Article - New anti-spam proposal in the House of Representative)

Kee Hinckley <nazgul@somewhere.com> Tue, 27 May 2003 04:00 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13279 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2003 00:00:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4R408S29966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 00:00:08 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4R408B29963 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2003 00:00:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13258; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:59:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KVbK-0006pG-00; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:58:14 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KVbJ-0006pD-00; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:58:13 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4R3wSB29856; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:58:28 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4R3v4B29792 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:57:04 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13218 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:56:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KVYM-0006oP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:55:10 -0400
Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KVYL-0006oM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:55:09 -0400
Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2393488; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:56:44 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com
Message-Id: <p0600134bbaf890811fd9@[192.168.1.104]>
In-Reply-To: <200305270134.h4R1Yric021306@calcite.rhyolite.com>
References: <p06001347baf8673e742d@[192.168.1.104]> <200305270134.h4R1Yric021306@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
From: Kee Hinckley <nazgul@somewhere.com>
Subject: Re: ADV: (was Re: [Asrg] Article - New anti-spam proposal in the House of Representative)
Cc: asrg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:54:48 -0400

At 7:34 PM -0600 5/26/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>I think you are mistaken.
>   - I've seen users talk about using whitelisting with Hotmail
>   - I think I've been told the Outlook can do something like whitelisting
>   - Netscape 7's filters can be used to whitelist.

If that is the case--why are they getting spam?

>  > Because I'm making the assertion that the number of people who
>>  whitelist is tiny.  As evidence I'd offer a) that the majority of
>>  users have a major spam problem, and b) my experiences with sending
>>  mail to wormalert hoaxed folks using a different email address, yet
>>  getting through fine.
>
>That does not look like evidence for or against whitelisting to me.

I sent 30,000+ messages to complete strangers and the vast majority 
of the messages were received.  Believe me, these were not people who 
have filters.

>I believe Habeas's claim that most of the Internet has already
>white-listed the Habeas mark.  So why aren't more spammers forging it?

What does "most of the internet mean"?  AOL, MSN and Earthlink have 
decided to let Habeas mail through for their users?  I could believe 
that.  But that has nothing to do with whitelisting email addresses 
and lists.

>And why don't you see forged spam supposedly from CERT or the IETF?

Because 99% of the users out there haven't a clue what they are, and 
certainly haven't whitelisted them.

I think you're talking about ISP whitelisting.  I'm talking about 
end-user whitelisting.  Those are two completely different things.

>  > In some respects, the (semi-articulated) proposal from the
>>  bulk-mailing folks appears to be an attempt to provide a similar
>>  identification mechanism for non-list, bulk mail.
>
>What is "non-list, bulk mail"?  As far as I can see, the bulk mail

The stuff companies like Roving send for their customers, and large 
companies like Amazon send for themselves.  Am I really being that 
unclear?  I give up.


-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg