North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Complaint of the week: Ebay abuse mail (slightly OT)
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 19:41:35 BST, Richard D G Cox <[email protected]> said: > The immediate benefit (as sender) is that you reduce the (now ever-increasing) > risk of your mail being rejected by filtration processes and will be trusted > on arrival; the benefit for the recipient is of course less junk! Erm. No. You only get benefit as *other* sites deploy. If they haven't bought in, they won't contact your new service. Or to use a totally different example - if you've deployed IPv6, you won't actually get connections from other sites until THEY put up IPv6 too. Your users receive less junk only once a significant number of other sites deploy. > However you CAN stop accepting "plain old SMTP" right away, because you can > delegate that to a filtration service that hosts your old-style MX, applies > ever-increasingly stringent filtration rules, and then forwards to you using > the new protocol. Several such filtrations services may well appear when the > time is right. And this is an improvement over just applying the filtration rules *how*? ;) "Since SpamAssassin isn't good enough to solve the problem, I'll run it over THERE instead, and then forward 99.9% of my mail to here over new protocol XYZ". > > 2) Who bears the implementation cost when a site deploys, and who gets > > the benefit? (If it costs *me* to deploy, but *you* get the benefit, > > why do I want to do this?) > > Both parties get benefits which seriously outweigh the costs! Enumerate. Remember *not* to count benefits that aren't a result of your protocol change... > > 3) What percentage of sites have to deploy before it makes a real > > difference, and what incremental benefit is there to deploying before tha= > t? > > To some extent the concept is already here, and deployed, whether using > in-house filters or remote-MX, to subject the unauthenticated mail - which > of course is currently ALL the mail - to appropriate filtering. Right.. so you can't count "filtering" as a benefit (see above). So what benefit do you get for doing it *before* it reaches critical mass? > That goes for any precautions taken - not just content filters. That is WHY > the contractual relationships are absolutely essential for any new scheme. > And there, too, lies the bulk of the work needed - the technical issues do > not place any great demands on the networking community. Gaak. There was a *reason* the X.400 concept of ADMD and PRMD died an ugly death - it doesn't scale well at all. "Contractual relationships" is just a buzzword meaning "whitelisting after the lawyers got hold of it". :) ObNANOG: If this goes through, it will be considered a revenue source by many providers. See "peering versus buying transit" for details. ;) > > If you have a *serious* proposal that actually passes all 4 questions > > (in other words, it provides immediate benefit to early adopters, and > > still works when everybody does it), bring it on over to '[email protected]'. > > Heh. The noise-to-signal level *there* is far worse than in NANOG - by at > least 12dB last time I looked ;-) Would improve vastly if asrg wasn't spending so much time thrashing yet another non-bootstrappable proposal to death :) And to the other responder who's name I've lost- yes, there's no good technical solution to spam. That's why I advocate collecting $500 from each ISP to hire some muscle from a suitable ethnic organized crime organization (I'm told competition is driving the costs down ;) to "explain our position and make some examples". This would quickly change the percieved economics of spamming - that $4K/week suddenly looks a *lot* less inviting when you know the last guy who tried it got a visit from 3 guys with baseball bats... ;) Attachment:
pgp00009.pgp
|