more on Why it is difficult to counter spam

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ed Gerck <egerck () nma com>
Date: September 23, 2004 5:41:38 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] : Why it is difficult to counter spam

[for IP, if you wish]

> ....... Forwarded Message .......
> From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com>
>  Spam conforms to Internet technical standards.

How about STD0010 (RFC0821), for example where it says
that the reverse-path contains the _source_ mailbox:

  The first step in the procedure is the MAIL command.  The
  <reverse-path> contains the source mailbox.
        MAIL <SP> FROM:<reverse-path> <CRLF>

> However would be irresponsible to make basic changes to an essential, 
> global infrastructure service, without having a clear understanding of 
> the impact of those changes and a clear consensus that the impact is 
> acceptable.

Yes, and I'd vote for a solution that changes the least or, as it may 
well be
possible, nothing at all. When people postulate that "changes are 
needed", they
stop looking for solutions that don't need changes. Many years ago, the 
death
of the Internet's expansion was predicted because IPv4 addresses were 
running
out and a change was neeed. NAT so.

> However, authentication does not prevent spam.  At a minimum, we need 
> to add accreditation (reputation) mechanisms before we are likely to 
> make any serious inroads.

Without authentication, it is not possible to use reputation. Con 
artists
learned this long ago.

Cheers,
Ed Gerck

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/