Subject: [Asrg] IM2000 and other lame schemes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:13:53 -0500

> To expand, if your incoming mailserver rejects all inbound messages with a=
 transient error and notifies the recipient. The recipient can then elect to=
 allow any similar messages through if the remote server tries again within=
 a set period of time.
This may have to second guess how many times the remote server will retry=
 before giving up, and either allow or reject the message with a permanent=
 error if the recipient does not express their will in time.

This kind of lame idea is a good example... so you end up increasing the cost of 
handling E-mail, wasting bandwidth and transmission latency on artificially 
necessary retries, and requiring new recordkeeping (queueing, etc) on both the 
recipient and sender ends.

What the hell benefit is THAT?

And the idea about "queueing it closer to the sender"... again, a large 
percentage of spam TODAY is sent by spambot zombies.  So you're NOT clogging up 
SPAMMER uplinks... or increasing THEIR costs... you're clogging, abusing, and 
increasing the cost to VICTIM ISPs and VICTIM users.

> Either way, if the message is legitimate but ends up being bounced, a clear=
 message could indicate why and recommend trying again or contacting the=
 user via other means to arrange to allow the message through.

And when those messages bounce back to Yahoogroups or Majordomo or other mailing 
list software, or publishers sending thousands of legitimate users... who the 
heck do you think is going to deal with all those stupid "challenge/response" 
type situations?

Publishers have already made quite clear their policy regarding such stuff.  
They just IGNORE such things, and if you want the information they're providing 
to you, you won't subject them to it.

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:32:49 -0400 (EDT)

> And the idea about "queueing it closer to the sender"... again, a
> large percentage of spam TODAY is sent by spambot zombies.  So you're
> NOT clogging up SPAMMER uplinks... or increasing THEIR costs...
> you're clogging, abusing, and increasing the cost to VICTIM ISPs and
> VICTIM users.

They _are_ spammers.  They may be doing it unwittingly and/or
unwillingly, but they're sending UBE.  _Also_ victims, they may be, and
I would cheerfully agree that they should not be punished as severely
as knowing and willing spammers...but they're still spewing spam and
need to be spanked.

As long as people buy into the idea that UBE spewers are not spammers
just because they're not aware they're doing it, the zombie armies will
continue to be an unfixed and probably unfixable problem.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       [email-masked]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:41:44 -0400 (EDT)

> recipient and sender ends.

Wrong.  The sender doesn't need any new recordkeeping, that's how
standard MTAs (not spamware) work already, which is _why_ the idea
works.

The recipient has to do more work, but the benefit is spam reduction.

The amount of delayed mail can be kept quite small.

> large percentage of spam TODAY is sent by spambot zombies.  So
> you're NOT clogging up SPAMMER uplinks... or increasing THEIR
> costs... you're clogging, abusing, and increasing the cost to VICTIM
> ISPs and VICTIM users.

Except that in that case, _if_ the ISPs can be convinced they need to
take action, the spam goes away before most of its victims will see
it.

Seth