nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
From: Barry Shein <bzs () world std com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:22:57 -0400
On March 25, 2014 at 23:33 LarrySheldon () cox net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP?
That is the point, isn't it. Most see spam as its content. The real problem with spam is its volume. Without the volume, some bot operators probably send on the order of a billion messages per day, it wouldn't be much of a problem. What makes that volume possible and pervasive is IP address mobility. Otherwise we'd just block the offending IPs and be done with it, to some extent -- I have a newer view on that but it'd be distracting. What makes IP address mobility possible is mass, unauthorized if not simply illegal use of others' resources, such as with botnets or massive exploiting of holes in web hosting sites' software. Fundamentally spam is a security isse. A spammer's stock in trade is the massive, free use of IP address and bandwidth resources. That the content is unwanted is almost incidental to this fact. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Owen DeLong (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Franck Martin (Mar 27)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Owen DeLong (Mar 27)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Tony Finch (Mar 27)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Jimmy Hess (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Dave Crocker (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Jeff Kell (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP John Levine (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Barry Shein (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Dave Crocker (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Barry Shein (Mar 26)
- Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP Blake Hudson (Mar 27)