Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal

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

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> > I believe that even that one-time price is sufficiently high to deter
> > a lot of spammers.

> forgive me if I'm skeptical.

You're forgiven.  But it's worth a shot.

> > Furthermore, the system can be tuned.

> you're still trying to evaluate messages based on some criteria that
> have nothing to do with whether the recipient wants it or not.

Well, it is *impossible* to tell if the recipient wants a message or
not.  So if that's the only measure we can use, we might as well quit
right now.  I don't know if I want a message or not until I've read it,
and by then it's too late.  And even if I didn't want it, it doesn't
mean the other recipients didn't either.

> > This does, as you say, hurt infrequent mailers.  That's an unavoidable
> > side-effect.

> we can certainly avoid it by not using this scheme.

Fine.  What do you suggest instead?  People already use a lot more
brute-force approaches with a lot worse side-effects, so I think you
are simply being disagreeable.

> > That's true, but forcing any kind of detectable behaviour onto
> > spammers is a good thing.

> not if it's a waste of effort.

It's not a waste of effort even if it only reduces bandwidth from
bounced message bodies.

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