[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Asrg] POSTAGE, was The fundamental misconception about paying for mail
> > How do you plan to identify and charge bulk senders without counting
> > the mail? Spammers already go to considerable effort to disguise
> > their bulk mail as a lot of different non-bulk mail. How do you
> > expect to keep bulk senders from sneaking under the radar by
> > masquerading as a lot of non-bulk senders?
>
>Does this mean we've moved beyond the "moral" issue?
Beats me. Nobody has mentioned a "moral" issue but you.
>meters, it's up to the bulk sender to purchase the "postage", likely a
>cryptographic scheme which identifies the purchaser uniquely
>(analogous to DKIM) and allows the sending of however many "stamps"
>were purchased, a countdown system.
Right, that brings us to the double spending problem ...
>There are many working systems, business models, on this planet which
>do not require or even attempt perfectioFrom asrg-bounces at irtf.org Sun Nov 30 18:33:57 2008
Return-Path: <asrg-bounces at irtf.org>
X-Original-To: asrg-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-asrg-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767913A68A9;
Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:33:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: asrg at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEC73A68A9
for <asrg at core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:33:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Ou9FZRuwG6Jm for <asrg at core3.amsl.com>;
Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E0D3A680C
for <asrg at irtf.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 69150 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2008 02:33:50 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56)
by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2008 02:33:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com;
h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
s=k1108; i=johnl at user.iecc.com;
bh=h7iGCI+SFSsA8IIZBU/WC4IPL7E3WZH31OsKkG1JfWA=;
b=ZTdW/OTjIA4a+z2CnrZT3KJE+IgqE7CS8i4dGzKr8ITCo1D9r6Hgfg6LCH510UOX1GNsz+0jjdDB3RgSWRVdPlhe2/lr1ap5nrfxt+/h11tURlWQgDe7soNqdFzwvkRp13/sxMDhG4gFjh/db9PE8+aOIMA8uN16i9WZbFu+9LE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com;
h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
s=k1108; bh=h7iGCI+SFSsA8IIZBU/WC4IPL7E3WZH31OsKkG1JfWA=;
b=QPtn+69d9aREa6403wTQRe6VwAxLG1Qj38Dfqw2ewGunYklt3HyRkMcMQt0GRzLyht5BtlMO7a42d4UpeVeC9Nf7seDy5+IojCxfB1bkKDNzicXCEcasopQQKo9aG29XdYsaqyNQFO+lNRx3sVABxVmZcmTp4mmnSRLrZS781x0=
Date: 1 Dec 2008 02:33:50 -0000
Message-ID: <20081201023350.98317.qmail at simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl at taugh.com>
To: asrg at irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <18737.41494.875601.428871 at world.std.com>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Asrg] POSTAGE,
was The fundamental misconception about paying for mail
X-BeenThere: asrg at irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg at irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>,
<mailto:asrg-request at irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg at irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request at irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>,
<mailto:asrg-request at irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: asrg-bounces at irtf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces at irtf.org
> > How do you plan to identify and charge bulk senders without counting
> > the mail? Spammers already go to considerable effort to disguise
> > their bulk mail as a lot of different non-bulk mail. How do you
> > expect to keep bulk senders from sneaking under the radar by
> > masquerading as a lot of non-bulk senders?
>
>Does this mean we've moved beyond the "moral" issue?
Beats me. Nobody has mentioned a "moral" issue but you.
>meters, it's up to the bulk sender to purchase the "postage", likely a
>cryptographic scheme which identifies the purchaser uniquely
>(analogous to DKIM) and allows the sending of however many "stamps"
>were purchased, a countdown system.
Right, that brings us to the double spending problem ...
>There are many working systems, business models, on this planet which
>do not require or even attempt perfection.
..n.
... because none of them are attempting to work in an environment
where 98% of the attempted transactions are bogus.
Say you've dropped into the local Dunkin Donuts for a donut and
coffee. But 98% of the cash that customers offer is counterfeit. How
would this affect the way that cashiers work? Would they just accept
all the cash and figure they'll call the cops when they find bogus
stuff?
If you design a system that is designed to leak a little spam, the bad
guys will aim their firehose through the leaks. Remember, they have
millions of zombies, so if your wonderful system rejects their fake
stamps with 99% accuracy, they try 100 times as often and get the same
amount of spam through.
None of this should come as any surprise to anyone who's thought
seriously about e-postage. I was certainly aware of it when I wrote
my white paper five years ago.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
. because none of them are attempting to work in an environment
where 98% of the attempted transactions are bogus.
Say you've dropped into the local Dunkin Donuts for a donut and
coffee. But 98% of the cash that customers offer is counterfeit. How
would this affect the way that cashiers work? Would they just accept
all the cash and figure they'll call the cops when they find bogus
stuff?
If you design a system that is designed to leak a little spam, the bad
guys will aim their firehose through the leaks. Remember, they have
millions of zombies, so if your wonderful system rejects their fake
stamps with 99% accuracy, they try 100 times as often and get the same
amount of spam through.
None of this should come as any surprise to anyone who's thought
seriously about e-postage. I was certainly aware of it when I wrote
my white paper five years ago.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg