Re: [Asrg] who gets the report, was We really don't need

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 08 February 2010 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 F1C1728C130 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:32:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.067
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.936, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 aCB1BSnDgrqA for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53.lightlink.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C2328C12C for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:32:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4853 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2010 15:33:59 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2010 15:33:59 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ha/R+KWCFycQVv2gzVsBBMlrOZVIB37/9Ox8x12Wr6U=; b=Na2+Upeoff3mlu/MoJQpDJyF/YaSzes4YUDSvnqL6orhpzd42dE9LElxZkaaI8MLLoUC02WMDDd5VpwpCkhKYDPqdOUNIcHOUrcKDuRgzP4d+AYjZpnNgsTFcimmkdktlYgVk5UJ3JwxdF8+CczqHEa+28+Saw0/ZBfjxiXDTkk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; bh=ha/R+KWCFycQVv2gzVsBBMlrOZVIB37/9Ox8x12Wr6U=; b=VXb6PtNH/E6XQXC2apsnMsgJr3H8SAdKHQwNv9nqv/YgVpq/9uMyWm9j1cm47KJRY7O9PHNEK3k1PyEapqtSGspiD+MSlYYP2PHQhRCUdaTmCg0Q7+kDyW7J/hRJldgAnesPeBqkocJ8Cm99e3CSjs5XpMiO9WUd8nxJPbOxWWQ=
Date: 8 Feb 2010 15:33:59 -0000
Message-ID: <20100208153359.56374.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <100208070822.ZM10490@torch.brasslantern.com>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] who gets the report, was We really don't need
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, 08 Feb 2010 15:32:59 -0000

>I'd say the worst they can do is to direct the abuse report back to
>themselves.  This not only suppresses some fraction of their spam
>complaints, but it also confirms valid email addresses and may reveal
>information about what MUA is in use, which in turn can be used to
>refine the next spam or exploit that they direct to that address.

A spammer might collect complaints and listwash, which would mean that
the complainant gets less spam.  I hope we agree that's the goal.

If a spammer wants to confirm receipt, which very few of them do,
he uses web bugs.  I suppose info about the MUA might be marginally
useful, but if I were a spammer and knew that a recipient was
sufficiently annoyed to press the spam button, I'd take them off the
list.  I still have millions of other people to mail to, after all.

R's,
John