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

[David Maxwell <david at vex.net>]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
> On July 29, 2004 at 16:39 david at vex.net (David Maxwell) wrote:
>  > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
>  > > 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?

There have been URLs posted to asrg detailing the network resources
required to spam.

It's just a question of multipliers. Any MTA that accepts multiple
recipients for a message multiplies a spammer's bandwidth by that much.
Viruses/trojans are just another form of multiplier. ISPs have shown
that they are happy to accept spammers on their network and ignore
complaints. Spam is workable without viruses.

As for your mainstream advertisers question - I have no idea. Since
senders aren't authenticated in any way, I can't know which messages
came from mainstream advertisers.

> 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.

Simply not true. Read the list archives.

>  > 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?!

I was thinking of Canter & Siegel.

>  > 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.)

No, my use of the word "obvious" was intended to say that since:

	A) SPAM
Existed before
	B) Windows hosts infected with viruses to spread spam

That your claim !B => !A is false.

> 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.

How about a Porsche?  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4631849/

Again, spammer revenue has been documented in the list archives.

>  > > 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.

They are not equivalent. One is self-contained, the other can link to
reputation systems. One is self-authorized, the other is authorized by
the authentic owner of the claimed association/identity.

>  > 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'll rephrase - "Your personal favorite part of the spam issue that you
want to resolve."

> 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.

Then you haven't understood them yet.

> 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".

You seem to be looking for aggrivation from my text, instead of trying
to understand what I said. Just as you seem to be looking for
aggrivation from RMX, instead of trying to understand how it will
benefit the email system.

-- 
David Maxwell, david at vex.net|david at maxwell.net -->
Net Musing #5: Redundancy in a network doesn't mean two of everything and
half the staff to run it.
					      - Tomas T. Peiser, CET      


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