why eliminating spoofing is interesting; RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

["Bob Atkinson" <bobatk@exchange.microsoft.com>]

An interesting observation is once you've eliminated the domain
spoofing, what you've then got in hand is a domain name that you can
reasonably believe has some amount of responsibility for the
transmission of the message. 

Domain name in hand, you can then ask yourself "What do I know about the
mail transmission policies of this domain? Do I know if they're
reasonable people?" There are any of a number of ways you might answer
this (that's a separate discussion) but if you don't have the
non-spoofed domain name in the first place, you can't get started.

	Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric
D. Williams
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 11:32 AM
To: 'Dave Crocker'; Hadmut Danisch
Cc: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

On Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:39 PM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:dhc@dcrocker.net]
wrote:
8<...>8
> The reason that I refer to RMX as a point solution, rather than
> something with a real potential for getting at the core of spam, is
> because it "only" attempts to deal with From-field spoofing.
>
> Spoofing is bad, but it is not at all the core problem with spam.

But spoofing is one of the plethora of problems that are found with
'spam'.

[...]


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