Re: [Asrg] Re: New draft on trust-path-discovery (Ono, Kumiko)

["Ono, Kumiko" <kumiko at cs.columbia.edu>]

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. 

Content-filtering is effective for anti-spam/spim (unsolicited bulk 
instant messages), but unfornately not for unsolicited bulk calls, 
because the call cannot be analyzed before the user answers it, as 
mentioned in a SIPPING draft, draft-ietf-sipping-spam-00.txt. 

Also, the number of my friends and their friends whose machines have 
been converted to spambots is very low. 

We understand our propsal is not a perfect solution. However, there is 
no single technique that can solve all spam problems. 

Regards,
Kumiko

At 15:17 2005/07/15, gep2 at terabites.com wrote:
>[quote]
>
>Henning and I wrote up the I-D that proposes a mechanism to find friends
>-of-friends and trusted domains, which could be used as a tool to make 
>white-list for filtering emails/calls. 
>
>We could not find any WG in the IETF that this draft belongs to, but we 
>believe this RG might be interested in this draft. 
>
>Any comments are welcome.
>
>>	Title		: Trust Path Discovery
>>	Author(s)	: K. Ono, H. Schulzrinne
>>	Filename	: draft-ono-trust-path-discovery-00.txt
>>	Pages		: 14
>>	Date		: 2005-7-12
>>	
>>   Chained or transitive trust can be used to determine whether incoming
>>   communication is likely to be desirable or not.  We can build a
>>   chained trust relationship by introducing friends to out friends, for
>>   example.  We propose mechanisms for discovering trust paths and
>>   binary responsive trustworthiness.  The trust paths are based on a
>>   chain of trust relationships between users, a user and a domain, and
>>   domains.  We apply this model to relatively low-value trust
>>   establishment, suitable for deciding whether to accept communication
>>   requests such as emails, calls, or instant messages from strangers.
>>
>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ono-trust-path-discovery-00.txt
>
>[end quote]
>
>None of these really work for spam protection, for the simple reason that all it 
>takes is for a "reputed/trusted" machine to be taken over by a spambot zombie 
>and then you start getting a flood of "trusted" spam.
>
>I recently read on another list that something like 84% of the spam one group 
>received (that HAD SPF 'protection') was in fact spam...!  Of course, I've been 
>pointing out for more than a year that SPF is stupid because it plain and simple 
>DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM it's being proposed to solve.
>
>I really think it's shameful for these people to claim that these schemes are 
>suitable for preventing or controlling spam when in fact they do little or 
>nothing at all towards that goal.  :-(
>
>And, again, many of us have a legitimate need to receive unsolicited (or at 
>least unexpected) E-mails from folks who will will not have on any kind of 
>whitelist.  What I like about MY proposal is that it's content-specific... I am 
>willing to accept more advanced forms of mail from specific people, depending on 
>who they are;  but I'm willing to accept (subject to it passing approval by an 
>additional antispam content filter, of course) at least a restricted subset of 
>mail features in a preliminary contact, and that from just about anybody.
>
>Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
>1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
>Support free and fair US elections!  http://stickers.defend-democracy.org
>12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
>12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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