Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem?

John Levine <asrg@johnlevine.com> Wed, 18 January 2006 03:10 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ez3i4-0007Tk-4Q; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:10:08 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ez3i0-0007TC-N5 for asrg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:10:04 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26509 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:08:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ez3qB-0006UZ-SF for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:18:36 -0500
Received: (qmail 5243 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2006 03:09:52 -0000
Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail2.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Jan 2006 03:09:52 -0000
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:09:54 -0000
Message-ID: <20060118030954.25248.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <asrg@johnlevine.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem?
In-Reply-To: <WoIm06J$$WzDFwuZ@siliconglen.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: craig@siliconglen.com
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg>
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>
Sender: asrg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces@ietf.org

>certainly with the various solutions being discussed it should be
>fairly straightforward to reject email from problem domains outright
>(DNS RBL) or downgrade the trustworthiness of said machines if they
>do not meet certain criteria. As a first step, this would allow spam
>filters to have a threshold set to block such mail.

I can't help but get the impression that you have not been investigating
the details of proposals like SPF and DKIM in much detail.  If it were 
easy to track the "trustworthiness" of the millions of machines on the
net, don't you think we'd be doing it?

>There are a number of proposals moving forward (slowly). Each of these 
>will help. However I don't see much in the way of actual project 
>management of this. Who is driving these proposals - what is their 
>marketing plan to ensure wide take up? Where is a discussion of the 
>problems bringing them to market? What is the expected timescale for 
>having these proposals widely available? Where is the business element 
>in the proposals ? Who argues the case for these proposals versus vendor 
>specific ones? Where is the viral campaign ala Firefox to get 100 
>million people using them in a year (even 10 million might be a start).

Nowhere that I know of.  So we all thank you for offering to do all
this important work.

R's,
John

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