Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting

John Morris in <a05200f09bb193252834d@[10.0.1.19]>

> At 1:24 PM -0500 6/20/03, Evan Harris wrote:

[snip]

> >The only issue I had with the original statement was the claim that this
> >method should cause greater concern for privacy.  While there are privacy
> >concerns with any statistics, I wouldn't consider this method any more of a
> >danger than normal server logs, since nothing is kept that couldn't be found
> >there.
> >
> >Evan
> 
> FWIW, my original point was that the grey list approach is a greater 
> cause for concern than a simple white list approach (which can reveal 
> a user's correspondents but not the date and time of the first and 
> last e-mail and the number of successful e-mails).
> 
> I agree that the grey  list approach is not radically more 
> problematic than mail server logs.  But even on that point, having 
> two places where private info aggregates is worse than having one.
> 
> Moreover, the greylist might in some cases be easier to locate or 
> access -- in some situations, for example a civil litigant might have 
> fairly direct access to his or her grey list (and thus be easily 
> required to produce it), but the related mail server logs might be 
> held by a third party ISP not under the litigant's control.  And, 
> once produced, the greylist can serve as an incomplete but still 
> useful index into the mail server logs.

If only a hash of the triplet were stored, would this solve
the privacy issue?

Regard,
      - Elric

-- 
Elric Pedder
Mailtraq Development (www.mailtraq.com)

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg