Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles

[Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at>]

<gep2 at terabites.com> wrote:
>
>2.  Accordingly, the definition of what they do and do not
>want MUST be such that the RECIPIENT defines it... not the
>IETF, not the sender's ISP, not the recipient's ISP, nor
>some governmental body, nor anybody else.

Most users prefer to delegate this job. It's 10x more efficient
to do so.

>3.  Systems which rely on the "reputation" or
>"certifications" of the (supposed) sender are not very
>helpful, because a user's machine can be compromised by a
>worm or virus, or because a purported sender's credentials
>can be forged.

I'm quite happy with reputation systems that block email
in these situations, because you can't expect to let your
machine be compromised without consequences. They also deal
with the vast majority of spam very cheaply.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
ROCKALL MALIN HEBRIDES: NORTH BACKING NORTHWEST 5 OR 6, OCCASIONALLY 7 LATER.
ROUGH INCREASING VERY ROUGH. WINTRY SHOWERS OR RAIN. MODERATE OR GOOD.

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