Re: [Asrg] Re: Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

[Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com>]

On July 29, 2004 at 16:39 david at vex.net (David Maxwell) wrote:
 > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
 > > On July 29, 2004 at 11:36 david at vex.net (David Maxwell) wrote:
 > >  > "Reputation systems don't stop spam because of forgery[%]; anti-forgery
 > >  > systems don't stop spam without a reputation system.  But put the two
 > >  > together and I can see it making a dent."
 > > 
 > > All this is nice fun and games social engineering of dubious value.
 > > 
 > > But what causes the spam problem we see is the massive and illegal
 > > hijacking of resources.
 > > 
 > > At any given moment probably millions of PCs are hijacked.
 > 
 > I don't disagree with that being a major factor, but it's not the root
 > cause.

I am asserting it is the root cause, absolutely.

Spammers could not operate in any noticeable way without the stolen
resources. We wouldn't be here if once in a while you got an ad you
didn't want. How often do you get them from mainstream advertisers?

W/o massive resource theft spammers would be like bad writers who
never get published, who'd care? Except in some metaphysical sense.

 > The spammers hijack PCs because it's easy to do, and cheaper than paying
 > for their own bandwidth. That certainly magnifies the spam problem, but
 > it didn't create it.

They hijack PCs because it is the only way they can possibly operate.

Previously, years ago, they may have used other methods of
distribution, but those methods have been successfully cut off.

I'd say "all" cut off but as they say, never say never. But the usual
old-fashioned methods of throwaway accounts etc.

 > Spam was present on the net before commercial ISPs and Windows hosts

Now you're splitting hairs and playing with semantics, do you mean
Brad Templeton's archive of the 1978 message from the DEC salesman?!

 > were plentiful. The www brought more end users on line, and upped the
 > revenue potential to spammers. It seems obvious to me that we would
 > still have spam without Windows hosts - though I agree we would likely
 > have somewhat less.

Your use of the word "obvious" probably belies a better phrase, "a
wild guess". But whatever, I just tend to be drawn to these emphatics
posing as argument (In fact, It is well known, it seems obvious, etc
etc.)

Spam, TAKEN AS THE PROBLEM IT IS, drawing so much trouble and
attention, feeds off of free mass distribution.

It's not clear that spammers make much money at all. It would be nice
to see some hard evidence either way rather than more folklore.

 > > It's about the ability (of spammers) to deliver mind-boggling amounts
 > > of content to (for argument's sake) hundreds of millions of people for
 > > almost no cost.
 > > 
 > > That it's annoying, offensive, tiresome, etc is really beside the
 > > point.
 > > 
 > > If it were hugely entertaining I think we'd still consider it a
 > > problem as its delivered.
 > > 
 > > If you try to understand the distinction I'm making you might
 > > understand my exasperation with proposals such as SPF, etc.
 > 
 > I understand your point, but the RMX proposals have an effect on the
 > root cause - injecting arbitrary content into the mail network.

But so did checking that sender host names really existed and that
didn't curtail spam one bit. Very similar, actually.

All this effort will accomplish, like that (which wasn't much effort
at all), will be to change a few characters in the spam headers.

 > If you think that the virus/trojan problem is the first one that should
 > be tackled, then promote what you see as a solution, instead of
 > interfering with discussion of other work that is valuable, just not
 > valuable to your personal spam vendetta issue.

I don't have a "personal spam vendetta issue", but I suppose you had
nothing of actual worth to say so sunk to invectives.

I just believe that SPF et al are badly thought out, have some
negative consequences, and won't do anything at all to curb the spam
plague other than perhaps once again slightly modifying some bytes in
the headers.

And I'd sure like to see something to the contrary that rises above
dopey remarks like accusing anyone who asks for its benefits of having
"a personal spam vendetta issue".

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

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