Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

["Alan DeKok" <[e-mail]>]

Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> VS> People keep saying that, but never say how.  If you turned on RMX
> VS> filtering in your MTA (postfix?) tonight, how much spam would be eliminated
> VS> and how?  How much would be eliminated next week, month, or in 3 year?
> 
> And herein lies the key questions.  As Vernon notes, no one has offered a
> careful, detailed response to these concerns.

  Sorry... I must have missed that comment of Vernon's in the midst of
his diatribes, inventions, and ad hominem attacks.

  That question can be trivially answered by reading the RMX I-D.
Quoting from Hadmut's -00 draft:

   8.1.5.  Unforged Spam

   This proposal does not prevent Spam ...


  I think that's the crux of the confusion surrounding the opposition
to RMX: the misunderstanding of it's intent and operation.

  He continues:


   However, the RMX approach is rendered ineffective, if the sender
   doesn't forge. If the sender uses just a normal address of it's own
   domain, this is just a plain, normal e-mail, which needs to be let
   through. Since it is up to the human's taste whether this is Spam
   or not, there's no technical way to reliably identify this as Spam.
   But since the sender domain is known, this domain can be
   blacklisted or legal steps can be gone into.


  Which deals with the limitations of the proposal.

  Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg