Re: [Asrg] define spam

[Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>]

> From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu>

> ...
> > If your threshold of effectivenewss is 10%, not even getting AOL to
> > apply your mechanism will work.
>
> <shrug>  So all is useless?

Things that do not have obviously and immediate good effects simply
do not get deployed voluntarily.  The only way you could get a mechanism
with a 10% threshold deployed is a law requiring it.  Even a law is
not be certain to produce 10% deployment without clear and immediate
benefits for the first 9%.  I hope you agree a law would certainly be
a bad thing.

Anything that has as an 80% deployement threshold to produce 80% spam
filtering effectiveness is completely useless even with government
help.  There is no longer a single government with enough power, and
never will be again until and unless the net is near death or the
world's political landscape is very different.

As far as I can tell, the proposals that have deployment thresholds
for 80% effectiveness have them closer to 80% deployment than 10%.


> ...
> We may know who the human is.  That will help when and as the laws you
> later mention progress.  What we don't recognize are the messages as
> specifically his or specifically forged that human injects at the time
> of injection, those messages as they are wandering the network, or even
> (generally) as they hit an LDA.  If we could recognise any of those
> things in a machine auditable and verifiable fashion we'd be in a
> considerable better position.

You seem to be among the many who assume something I think is false.
That is that most spam is "forged" in any meaningful sense of that
word.  I think that the laws against header forgery have convinced
most spammers to use sender addresses that they own, albeit often
only for a little while.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg