Re: [Asrg] IM2000 and other lame schemes

[Seth Breidbart <sethb at panix.com>]

gep2@terabites.com wrote:

>> To expand, if your incoming mailserver rejects all inbound messages with a=
> transient error and notifies the recipient. The recipient can then elect to=
> allow any similar messages through if the remote server tries again within=
> a set period of time.
> This may have to second guess how many times the remote server will retry=
> before giving up, and either allow or reject the message with a permanent=
> error if the recipient does not express their will in time.
>
> This kind of lame idea is a good example... so you end up increasing the cost of 
> handling E-mail, wasting bandwidth and transmission latency on artificially 
> necessary retries, and requiring new recordkeeping (queueing, etc) on both the 
> recipient and sender ends.

Wrong.  The sender doesn't need any new recordkeeping, that's how
standard MTAs (not spamware) work already, which is _why_ the idea
works.

The recipient has to do more work, but the benefit is spam reduction.

The amount of delayed mail can be kept quite small.

> And the idea about "queueing it closer to the sender"... again, a
> large percentage of spam TODAY is sent by spambot zombies.  So
> you're NOT clogging up SPAMMER uplinks... or increasing THEIR
> costs... you're clogging, abusing, and increasing the cost to VICTIM
> ISPs and VICTIM users.

Except that in that case, _if_ the ISPs can be convinced they need to
take action, the spam goes away before most of its victims will see
it.

Seth

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