RE: [Asrg] RE: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)

["Chris" <asrg@rebel.com.au>]

> 
> 
> Whether or not pull eliminates spam is besides the point.
> 
> Pull eliminates false positives which are a serious problem for email
> broadcasters. It does not matter how good some spam filter might be in
> theory, if you are on the sending side you have to deal with the rubbish
> people use, or more accurately their ISP uses.
> 
> 

I am confused Phill. this sounds like a promotion of pull ?



Regards
Chris


> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:43 AM
> To: 'Scott A Crosby'; Yakov Shafranovich
> Cc: Chris; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: [Asrg] RE: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)
> 		Phill
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:scrosby@cs.rice.edu]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 1:34 AM
> > To: Yakov Shafranovich
> > Cc: Chris; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:13 -0500, Yakov Shafranovich 
> > <research@solidmatrix.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Chris wrote:
> > > >>>this is a research group. we should research and then make
> > > >>>recommendations
> > > >>
> > > >>This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup.
> > > >>The scope is
> > > >>control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible.
> > > >>
> > > >>BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain 
> > exactly what is
> > > >>wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is 
> > not possible.
> > > > Please re read my original post
> > > 
> > > > I do not intend to throw out SMTP they are your words
> > > > pull *IS* smtp
> > > > with two extra steps outgoing request and incoming accept/deny
> > > > both can use the current infrastructure UNCHANGED
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The question is how is going to help stem spam. That needs to be
> > > answered before going into minute details of implementation.
> > 
> > 
> > Pull might help stop spam. Right now, a sender system only has to
> > exist to inject a single message for it to get through. With a pull
> > mechanism, the sender must remain at a stable IP address for at least
> > a few hours to a few days. Sending systems can't be ephemeral anymore.
> > 
> > By a pull system what I mean is a system where a sender pushes an
> > announcement that a message is ready. A recipient then 'pulls' the
> > message from the sender at a later time just as they are. The push
> > message contains a nonce for retrieval and a cryptographic digest of
> > the message.
> > 
> > With a pull system, you can 'retroactively' block access to messages
> > sent from malicious serveres, by exploiting the hours or days between
> > being sent and being read. This is because the messages have yet to be
> > distributed to a million mailboxes.
> > 
> > Whether or not this is worth a protocol change I won't say, but it is
> > another mechanism.  I hate to say it, but from reading ASRG, people
> > seem unwilling to make hard choices. 
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

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