RE: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating

Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com> Thu, 03 July 2003 15:33 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17181 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:33:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y653-00029p-20 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:06 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63FX56b008284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:33:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y652-00029O-UF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:04 -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 LAA16995; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y651-0000NA-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:03 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y650-0000N4-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:02 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y641-0001qW-UM; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:32:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y63r-0001lX-F4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -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 LAA16598 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:31:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y63q-0000Jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:31:50 -0400
Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y63p-0000Ik-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:31:49 -0400
Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <G7BLYQ86>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:19:06 -0400
Message-ID: <B1F08F445F370846AB7BEE424365F00D0188CBBD@ctxchg.ciphertrust.com>
From: Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com>
To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" <asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
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/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:19:05 -0400


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating 
> 
> 
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> >   In late December, I got an account at clss.net that 
> allows end-users 
> > to set up individual blocklist selections and whitelists.  
> Processing 
> > takes place just after RCPT:, and rejections consist of the 
> big 550, 
> > not the mailbombing of innocent 3rd-parties that have been 
> forged as 
> > the "From:" address.
> 
>   In the past few weeks, I've started receiving a number of 
> such idiot bounces every day, to all of my public email addresses.
> 
> > My spam count on this account has gone down from multiple spams per 
> > day to multiple days between spams.
> 
>   Wonderful.  Does this work for AOL?  Nortel?  Hotmail?  Striker?
> 
>   Not really.  (Or, not without substantial cost.)  And what 
> do you do when the spam load goes up by a factor of 10, as it will?
> 
>   If such a solution could get rid of the vast majority of 
> spam, then we wouldn't need ASRG.  But it can't, and it won't 
> scale to the future.  As previous discussions on ASRG have 
> shown, the amount of spam can increase by a factor of 10 to 
> 100, before it starts to dominate the network.

I did not see his message suggesting that this was a solution to the 'global
problem' of spam. I do think that this is an interesting perspective on the
differences between various spam responses. This is closely related to the
conversation around giving temporary failures to suspect messages.

Of course, in all of this there is place for the counter-argument that this
describes spammers' current behavior and that behavior can change. I do not
think this should stop us from at least gaining an understanding of it. With
all of this, we must understand the assumptions that the proposal is based
upon and consider the effect of changes in those conditions.

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