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

[Daniel Feenberg <feenberg at nber.org>]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Tony Finch wrote:
> > <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.
>
>
> Not to quibble, but I would have guessed several orders of magnitude greater.
>
> Probably more.
>
> Also, for most of the world's 1+ billion users, I'd have added "effective" to 
> "efficient"...
>
> d/

Among other problems with individually maintained spamblocks is the 
difficulty in rehabilitating a legitimate address (ip or domain) after
it has been widely blocked for prior bad behavior.

Forbidding cooperation or delegation is a spammer's trick.

Daniel Feenberg

> --
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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