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

Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org> Mon, 22 June 2009 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <claudio@telmon.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 9DF623A69D4 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 sw7QC2LWoXRA for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slim-2c.inet.it (slim-2c.inet.it [213.92.5.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450DD3A6A26 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 88-149-250-16.dynamic.ngi.it ([::ffff:88.149.250.16]) by slim-2c.inet.it via I-SMTP-5.6.0-560 id ::ffff:88.149.250.16+TNlx3NGiR4q; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:19:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4A401199.6010502@telmon.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:19:53 +0200
From: Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090318 Lightning/0.8 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4A3DFC91.2090506@telmon.org> <4A3F9B2B.8020603@tana.it> <4A3FF3AF.9030401@telmon.org> <4A3FF7F1.1060705@nd.edu> <4A3FFB64.6030409@telmon.org> <20090622215251.GA2137@gsp.org> <4A400246.9060103@telmon.org> <1245709864.77647.26.camel@legolas.orthanc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <1245709864.77647.26.camel@legolas.orthanc.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 23:19:40 -0000

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> All of which puts the burden once again -- or 'still' -- on the backs of
> the innocent victims. This doesn't solve anything.

I'm probably missing your point. I'm corresponding with person A. I give
him a token he can use to send me messages. He is careless, and has his
system compromised, so a spammer can take that token and use it for
sending me spam. I would feel more a victim of A than a victim of the
spammer. This framework takes the problem at the level of a relationship
between me and somebody who doesn't handle the relationship with proper
care. The system compromise is an accident that is known to happen to
careless people. By using this framework, I can give another opportunity
to A, by informing him of the problem, reprimand him, talk about this
with our friends, invalidate the token and send him another one, or I
can just close the (email) relationship. The same if the token is
directly provided by A to other undesired correspondents. These are
things I cannot do if I just look at spam messages. Also, I can restore
a situation where the information in the hands of the spammer is
useless, and at almost no cost, so I wouldn't say that it doesn't solve
anything.

-- 

Claudio Telmon
claudio@telmon.org
http://www.telmon.org