Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:30 AM, Brandon Ross <bross () pobox com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > This assumes a different economic model of SPAM that I have been lead to believe exists.
> >
> > My understanding is that the people sending the SPAM get paid immediately and that the people paying them to send it 
> > are the ones hoping that the advertising/phishing/etc. are acted on.
>
> Fine, then the people paying the people who do the spamming have more of an incentive to pay higher rates and more 
> spammers.  It doesn't really matter how may layers of abstraction there are, the point is that the main motivator has 
> become more attractive.

Perhaps… But I’m not convinced.

Today we have more than sufficient motivation to continue to game the system and virtually no incentive to make the 
system less open to gaming.

While I agree this would increase economic incentives to game the system slightly, it would also add some rather strong 
incentives to improve security and make the process of gaming much harder.

Perhaps this isn’t a good solution, but it certainly cannot be argued that what we are doing so far is working.

Owen