Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal

[Ian Eiloart <[e-mail]>]

--On 22 June 2009 16:31:04 -0600 Lyndon Nerenberg <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 00:14 +0200, Claudio Telmon wrote:
>> These, in turn, can see that spam
>> arrives with the tokens they provided to the system owner, inform the
>> system owner about this fact and invalidate the tokens. Once the
>> system
>> security is "restored", the spammer is left with useless tokens.
>> Collected consent-protected addresses are useless without valid
>> tokens.
>
> All of which puts the burden once again -- or 'still' -- on the backs of
> the innocent victims. This doesn't solve anything.
>

That's the wrong test. The test should not be "does this mechanism place a 
burden on the innocent?". All new mechanisms do that.

Instead, you should ask whether the mechanism places a disproportionate 
burden on the innocent. The burden should be at least somewhat less than 
the burden currently imposed by spammers. That's a much easier test to pass 
if you include the burden on sys-admins. However, the burden placed on end 
users should not be a cognitive burden - most won't cope.


-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/