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

[David Maxwell <david at vex.net>]

Switching to top-posting mid-thread is an odd thing to do.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
> 
> Well, spammers certainly lie, yes.
> 
> That's different than your claim that people on this list (i.e., the
> "list archives") were lying, as you implied.

I said nothing of the like. I shouldn't continue with this exchange if
you're going to just make things up.

I _said_, I won't bother posting some relevant links, because in the
thread I was thinking of, _you_ already said they were lies. _You_ said
you don't remember saying anything was a "lie". Then I posted the link
to your message, and quoted you, saying the material "seems to be woven
together lies".

> I don't think people here are lying when they say things like spammers
> make enough money to buy the bandwidth they need, etc. I just wonder
> why they believe that and haven't yet gotten a good answer, just
> various repetitions of what some believe.

Since things like bandwidth and cpu power are getting cheaper, the cost
to spam will decrease, unless other factors in the cost rise more
quickly.

> It's an important question, because if spammers don't make much money
> and they can't afford the resources needed to spam with, in sufficient
> volume to be a nuisance, then these zombie PCs are indeed the key to
> stopping them or slowing them down to a point that we won't care much
> about them.
> 
> And also importantly, the various technical solutions, other than
> those which would stop the zombie pc's, are therefore being oversold
> and probably not worth the effort being put into them.

Agreed, however...

> So, yes, it would be important to know what the typical revenues of
> these spammers are if one is going to solve the practical problems.

RMX etc, prevent forging - and phishing attacks are worth preventing,
even if spam is solved by killing the viruses.




> On July 30, 2004 at 11:25 david at vex.net (David Maxwell) wrote:
>  > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
>  > > On July 29, 2004 at 21:36 david at vex.net (David Maxwell) wrote:
>  > >  > Yes, I see that you already replied in the threads I was thinking of,
>  > >  > and said they were lies then.
>  > > 
>  > > I don't remember saying anything was a "lie", just folklore of
>  > > suspicious origin and asked if there was anything more factual
>  > > available.
>  > 
>  > See:
>  > 
>  > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg04709.html
>  > 
>  > Tue, 13 May 2003 16:57:01 -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
>  > > The whole article seems to be woven together lies.
>  > 
>  > -- 
>  > 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      
> 
> -- 
>         -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*

-- 
David Maxwell, david at vex.net|david at maxwell.net --> The only difference I see
between voodoo and marketing research is that voodoo sometimes works! 
						- Leonard Stern 



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