Re: [Asrg] An "ideal" false positive (TMGRS take 2)

Alessandro Vesely <> Fri, 29 January 2010 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DF93A6784 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:58:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5hkIFzsFTMP for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EFA3A6452 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by with ESMTPSA; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:59:09 +0100 id 00000000005DC02F.000000004B6321ED.00003438
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:59:09 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] An "ideal" false positive (TMGRS take 2)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:58:52 -0000

On 29/Jan/10 14:56, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:04:42PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>  Alice reports as spam a message from Bob, either by mistake or out
>>  of curiosity.
> But there is no way to know that Alice actually filed the report
> or that Bob actually sent the message.

Botted users and nonsensical users would result in disputes that will 
eventually reveal their true nature. (For the time being, let's 
discard the case that _both_ Alice and Bob are botted, with their bots 
playing funny games with one another.)

I have already observed (take 1) that TMGRS cannot work for sites that 
allow repeated uncontrolled anonymous subscriptions by the same 
user/bot. If each user can be reached, directly or indirectly, the 
number of botted users /per site/ will still be manageable.

> I see no reason -- at the moment -- why that number won't steadily continue
> to increase over the next several years, which is as far as my crystal ball
> will let me see. ;-)  Given that, setting up a mechanism that spammers and
> other abusers can co-opt for their own purposes *at will* appears to me
> to be a pointless exercise.

OTOH such state of affairs is driven by spam. Thus there may be a 
point in trying this exercise. I would dare say that the Internet has 
the potential to elicit acceptable privacy rules for advertisement 
--unlike tele(phone/vision).

The other chicken and egg problem is how to start an MGRS to support 
AR forwarding, given that TMGRS requires ARs to work reliably.