RE: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport

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

>   Stopping spam *WILL* have *SOME* costs; deal with it.  There is no
> such thing as a perfect spam filter/block.  You are wrong to phrase the
> question in a binary "all costs" or "no costs" manner.


In my message where is the "no cost"?
I stated and I quote
"Spam should be countered but not at the expense of losing possibly
important messages"

Does this say let all SPAM through?

It just says all reasonable (obvious) measures should be taken but not to
the extreme of losing important messages.

In other words, err on the side of caution.

In response to Alans comment...
"How you you define "obvious"?  Who decides?"

Obvious spam would have to fall into the category of messages from forged
source addresses, messages containing viruses and I am sure their are plenty
of other "absolutes" which can be included.

All I would like to see is some sort of directive that says "When in doubt
about the intent of the message. it must be passed thru" if other factors
cause its eventual loss then so be it.


>
>   In my case, it's a 550 reject message *TO THE SENDING MTA, NOT AN
> INNOCENT THIRD-PARTY WHOSE ADDRESS HAS BEEN FORGED IN ENVELOPE_SENDER*.
>

Hence my enthusiasm for sender identification systems, such as spf/DK etc..

That way the actual sender gets the rejection notice, and can take measures.
especially if it indicates their machine has been compromised.

only minimal if any good will come from bouncing it to the last known good
MTA.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:asrg-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Walter Dnes
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 11:09 AM
> To: ASRG list
> Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport
>
>
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:03:12AM +0930, Chris wrote
> >
> > Is there a mention in our Charter about the *reliability of transport*?
> >
> > From what I have seen over the months there is two camps within
> this group
> >
> >
> > 1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost
> > 2/ Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense of
> > losing possibly important messages
> >
> > I am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone).
> >
> > It seems to me that this is a paramount consideration. and this group
> > should support one or the other to the exclusion of the other. As
> > I see it as a major sticking point amongst proponents.
>
>   Stopping spam *WILL* have *SOME* costs; deal with it.  There is no
> such thing as a perfect spam filter/block.  You are wrong to phrase the
> question in a binary "all costs" or "no costs" manner.  It's more a
> question of risk management, i.e. what level of false positives are you
> willing to accept where 0% < FP < 100% ?
>
>   Even no filtering will lead to lost/delayed email as people JHD the
> wrong emails.  And let's not forget about email being rejected due to
> inboxes filled-to-capacity with spam.  I recognize anti-spam measures as
> necessary evils, hopefully the lesser of two evils.
>
> > As a mail user I want to see a message that I send reach its
> > destination without wondering if it ever made it because I somehow
> > triggered a spam filter.
>
>   And so do spammers.
>
> > This should include that any system must have a suitable reporting
> > system (bounce) so that I am made aware of any errors in transit. This
> > reporting system must of course not be useable by spammers to probe
> > the filter to break it. Which I understand is a major risk.
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes at waltdnes.org>
> Email users are divided into two classes;
> 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
> 2) Those who wish they did
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg


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