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

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 17 August 2009 14:44 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 61B483A6951 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:44:57 -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 AFFlOgg93bfa for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331743A699F for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.25.206.dsl.charm.net [207.114.25.206]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7HEiuuD007917 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:44:57 -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 n7HEbMQp004789 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:37:23 -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 n7HEiouF025789 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:44:50 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n7HEiooW025788 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:44:50 -0400
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:44:50 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20090817144450.GA22048@gsp.org>
References: <922a897b0908170253k60c0d57dh5e593c78f9137fab@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <922a897b0908170253k60c0d57dh5e593c78f9137fab@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
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 14:44:57 -0000

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.

---Rsk