IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis

"Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org> Tue, 18 May 2004 17:02 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27585 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7ja-0001iB-Sx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:46:30 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4IGkUI4006572 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:46:30 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7hC-0000oV-8B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:44:02 -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 MAA26555 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:43:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ7hA-00068d-KY for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:44:00 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7gK-00066H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:43:09 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7fX-00063w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:42:19 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7Tg-0004dM-TQ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:30:04 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7I3-0001VH-LO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:18:03 -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 MAA25307 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ7I2-0004fg-8a for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:18:02 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7HA-0004df-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:17:08 -0400
Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7Gj-0004bN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:41 -0400
Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5558D16FCA for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan DeKok <aland@ox.org>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 May 2004 05:48:37 EDT." <200405181002.GAA26962@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Message-Id: <20040518162206.5558D16FCA@mail.nitros9.org>
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/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:22:06 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
> >> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally.
> > Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for
> > good reason.
> 
> Problem?  What problem?  I am quite happy to reject mail from people
> who think they deserve to be exempted from the RFCs that apply to
> everyone else

  Is this another example of the SMTP spec having requirements, but
supplying no provisions for satisfying, or enforcing, those
requirements?

  Similar weaknesses exist in other protocols, but they're less
problematic for a whole host of reasons.

  Hmm... I think it's time for me to update my attempt at creating a
document describing "how spammers abuse fields and flaws in SMTP, and
why".

  Alan DeKok.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email