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

Paul Russell <prussell@nd.edu> Mon, 22 June 2009 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <prussell@nd.edu>
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 27BF43A697B for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 5MjRayV5jEz0 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-p1.cc.nd.edu (mx-p1.cc.nd.edu [129.74.250.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462063A6971 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-2.cc.nd.edu (mta-2.cc.nd.edu [129.74.250.37]) by mx-p1.cc.nd.edu (Switch-3.3.0/Switch-3.3.0) with ESMTP id n5MLQmHF018159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:26:49 -0400
Received: from [172.19.226.96] (nat20.cc.nd.edu [129.74.4.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta-2.cc.nd.edu (Switch-3.3.0/Switch-3.3.0) with ESMTP id n5MLUPmH007552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:30:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4A3FF7F1.1060705@nd.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:30:25 -0400
From: Paul Russell <prussell@nd.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4A3DFC91.2090506@telmon.org> <4A3F9B2B.8020603@tana.it> <4A3FF3AF.9030401@telmon.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A3FF3AF.9030401@telmon.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: 129.74.250.37
X-ND-MTA-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:26:49 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: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:30:13 -0000

On 6/22/2009 17:12, Claudio Telmon wrote:
> Well, this stream doubling is something many already do, keeping one
> address for close friends and business partners, not disclosing it in
> order to avoid spam and other messages. But again you're right, the
> framework would need reach a critical mass in some time, or it would be
> abandoned even by early adopters.

Back in the day when most spammers obtained addresses by harvesting them from
web pages, you could, for the most part, keep a mailbox spam-free by disclosing
your email address only to those from whom you wanted to receive email.  The sun
set on that scene long ago.  Spammers generate potential recipient addresses
based on common names and naming schemes, or harvest them from address books and
private mail archives on compromised systems.  Security by obscurity seldom
works for very long.

-- 
Paul Russell, Senior Systems Administrator
OIT Messaging Services Team
University of Notre Dame