Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing

[Kee Hinckley <nazgul@somewhere.com>]

At 4:18 PM -0400 10/3/03, Curtis M. Kularski wrote:
> I find item #1 humorous, "unscrupulous companies". Ever shopped with
> Amazon.com? They sell addresses, but yet have a high amount of consumer
> trust.
As I mentioned, I use tagged email addresses.  I've shopped with 
Amazon.com since they opened the store.  I've never had them sell my 
address.  They *did* expose it to the public once, when I commented 
on an auction vendor, not realizing they would use my amazon.com 
address, but that was easy enough to fix once I realized it.

What evidence do you have that they sell addresses?

> In response to item 3, the idea of the disposable address is for the
> server to dispose of the mail and not respond. The server would forward
> the mail to a dead-end account.
Those two statements contradict each other.  Either you reject the 
mail, or you forward it.  If you forward it, then you get a *huge* 
bandwidth hit.  I assumed that you would reject it, and my example 
addresses that assumption:

>  > 3. Spreading lots of different email addresses around is a bad idea.
> >  The fact that you know you can reject them really doesn't help.  As  we
> >  speak, my mail server is eating up 8-16KBs of bandwidth right now  doing
> >  nothing but rejecting email sent to non-existent addresses.  Yesterday
> >  some idiot on Level3's network tried to connect to our mail  server
> >  500,000 times.  You do *not* want that happening to your mail  server.
> >  Increasing the number of throwaway addresses simply
>  > increases the bandwidth costs of spam.
None of those addresses are being accepted.  That bandwidth and 
traffic comes from bouncing spam and viruses sent to 40,000 
non-existent addresses.  We bounce one every two seconds in normal 
times, 10-15 a second during peak virus season.  To put that in terms 
of throw-away addresses, I'd guess that an average user might have 20 
throwaways in a year, so call that the traffic for 2000 users (the 
first year--of course it doubles every year after that).

Throwaway addresses are based on the assumption that sending mail to 
a non-existent address is "free".  It isn't.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/         Next Generation Spam Defense
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/  Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.

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