Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?

Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Mon, 17 August 2009 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dotis@mail-abuse.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 4FB2F3A67E2 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.176, 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 8WnkGv0MrSf7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA0E3A677C for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SJC-Office-NAT-214.mail-abuse.org (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD75FA9443A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:24:32 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4A898440.6080006@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:24:32 -0700
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <922a897b0908170253k60c0d57dh5e593c78f9137fab@mail.gmail.com> <20090817144450.GA22048@gsp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090817144450.GA22048@gsp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?
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, 17 Aug 2009 16:24:47 -0000

On 8/17/09 7:44 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:23:36PM +0530, Ravi shankar wrote:
>> Today's model is no different from what i have suggested in that they deploy
>> costly anti-spam solutions, which utilise probably 10 fold resource
>> than what this solution will use.
>
> If they are costly, and if they use so many resources, then they're not
> very good solutions.  It's not difficult at all to construct very cheap,
> very efficient anti-spam solutions which exhibit good performance
> characteristics (that is: low FP, low FN, no backscatter, no spamming,
> no special MUA/MTA software needed, etc.)
>
> The fact that some (many?) people choose not to avail themselves of these
> methods is unfortunate, but doesn't invalidate the methods.

Rich,

Could you provide a brief outline regarding what constitutes an 
efficient anti-spam solution?

-Doug