[Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio
Philip Miller <millenix@zemos.net> Wed, 19 May 2004 23:58 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29955 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:58:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaqU-0007BL-Kd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:34 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNpYEP027602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQahI-00059H-Mq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:04 -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 TAA29296 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQahG-0004d7-WF for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:02 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQagQ-0004VK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:41:11 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQafX-0004N8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:40:15 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQadU-0003bd-IM; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaOt-0000Bt-GG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:23:03 -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 TAA28503 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaOr-0002R2-MF for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:23:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaNs-0002Dn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:22:00 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaMZ-00020e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:40 -0400
Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQaMa-0001z5-00 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:20:40 +0200
Received: from pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net ([69.141.77.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:20:40 +0200
Received: from millenix by pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:20:40 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: asrg@ietf.org
From: Philip Miller <millenix@zemos.net>
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <40ABEBC1.2080703@zemos.net>
References: <20040519182510.5840.8742.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <459BEE9A-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
In-Reply-To: <459BEE9A-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio
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/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:33 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jim, You wrote: >> One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the >> imbalance between mail sent and mail received. Unfortunately I do not >> see a convenient way to penalize people who fall into this category. I don't agree with that characteristic as generally defining, but with some large exceptions, it could be. I'll accept it for purposes of discussion. > One idea about this (although I don't know how scalable it is) would > be, if you could authenticate the sender ie DomainKeys or the like, then > every sender would have a send/receive ratio (somewhere), which would be > entered into the mail header in some way that it could not be spoofed > (more protocol changes though). Then if a mail is received by the > end-user's inbox, it could check the ratio, and decide whether to > accept/reject/quarantine it. Not too many protocol changes, if the entire check were out-of-band. The only problem with it is that there either needs to be some trusted 3rd-party that would keep the counts (hah!) or some distributed system that could produce accurate, Internet-wide, statistics on demand (and double hah!). It would be nice and elegant, it's just a complete impossibility. > But I sill don't see a way to penalize senders who are rejected too > often. Although perhaps it could be integrated into the 'delay' in > creating the email-stamp/introduction-stamp (the more higher your > send/receive ratio goes, the more it "costs" to send new stuff) Another > possibility is of course law enforecement, but this would seem to > require some centralization of the ratio information, and whose > rejecting what. You would either increase their costs/delays to send, or you would reject outright. > The send/receive ratio might also be a problem for mailing lists - > maybe, I'd have to see statistics. Mailing lists, in a hybrid system, could be easily white-listed by any number of means. The registration messages should, in theory, have a perfect 1:1 send:receive ratio. Of course, if someone were trying to make subscribing to a particular list impossible, he could get it to send out numerous registration confirmation messages to skew the ratio. Sincerely, Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Chris
- [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Jim Witte
- [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Philip Miller
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Chris
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Alan DeKok
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Chris
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Alan DeKok
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio David Maxwell
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Chris
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Alan DeKok
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Alan DeKok
- [Asrg] available Internet metrics for spam securiā¦ Bill Yurcik
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio der Mouse
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Chris
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Chris
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Alan DeKok