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

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 22 June 2009 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922F83A6971 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WTr7MkK2Sg0F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43A13A6898 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.162.dsl.charm.net [207.114.17.162]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5MLqu0V025279 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5MLmQPs005651 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:48:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n5MLqpKB002659 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:52:51 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n5MLqpT0002658 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:52:51 -0400
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:52:51 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20090622215251.GA2137@gsp.org>
References: <4A3DFC91.2090506@telmon.org> <4A3F9B2B.8020603@tana.it> <4A3FF3AF.9030401@telmon.org> <4A3FF7F1.1060705@nd.edu> <4A3FFB64.6030409@telmon.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A3FFB64.6030409@telmon.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:52:43 -0000

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Claudio Telmon wrote:
> In this respect, the framework should be effective, since spammers would
> also need to generate the consent token, which they can't. 

Why not?  They can run any code they want on any compromised system,
therefore they can generate the consent token the same way the former
owner of that system could.

---Rsk