Re: [Asrg] Too Big to Block?

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Thu, 09 July 2009 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mouse@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3293A6BCB for <>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.584
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.404, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8iQEHVT7sOYO for <>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559773A6B7B for <>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA26788; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:21:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Message-Id: <200907091821.OAA26788@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies.
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
In-Reply-To: <20090709173627.GP15652@verdi>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20090708155704.GN15652@verdi> <> <20090709152717.GO15652@verdi> <200907091604.MAA25275@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <20090709173627.GP15652@verdi>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Too Big to Block?
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:21:43 -0000

>> The point is not the zombies attacking the crypto.  The point is
>> zombies (ab)using their machines' legitimate owners' epostage.
> This is a problem why?

Because it means epostage won't help: it'll just mean that abused
machines' owners pay in yet another way.  (If epostage is expensive
enough, it may help a little in that it may slightly reduce the
compromise rate, but I think more likely it will result in pressure
against epostage.)

>>> Making ePostage work is clearly possible in an environment of [...]
>> Quite possibly.  Are such environments common enough to matter?
> I can imagine them... Why couldn't they be common?

I don't know.  But deployed epostage seems to be remarkably rare, so
_something_ is preventing its uptake; either your idea of how common
such environments are is way high or there's something else preventing
deployment despite what appears to be an open-and-shut case in favour.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B