Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal

["David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> > My intuition tells me spammers are more likely to have bad
> > addresses than legitimate bulk e-mailers.

> you're probably right.  but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to punish
> those who happen to have lots of bad mail addresses.

Well, any anti-spam scheme will have its side effects.  This is a pretty
mild side-effect, I think

> consider the organization that mails out one announcement per year to
> its members. lots of people will change addresses in that year.  is that
> organization's mail somehow illegitimate because its addresses bounce?

No.  That's a side-effect, and such organizations will need to work harder
to keep their lists clean.  (Do any organizations *really* mail out that
infrequently?)

> for that matter, is a spammer's mail any less annoying simply because it
> deletes addresses that do bounce?

In order to delete addresses that bounce, the spammer must be able to receive
bounce notifications, and therefore becomes more traceable -- the #1 goal
of many other proposals on this forum.

--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg