more on 4 Rivals Almost United on Ways to Fight Spam

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: vijay gill <vgill () vijaygill com>
Date: June 23, 2004 1:38:36 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on 4 Rivals Almost United on Ways to Fight Spam

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:21:46PM -0400, David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
> Date: June 23, 2004 11:13:21 AM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] 4 Rivals Almost United on Ways to Fight Spam
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:36:29AM -0400, David Farber wrote:
> > Four large Internet service providers agreed yesterday to a
> > partial truce in their battle with one another over
> > potential technology to stop junk e-mail in hopes that they
> > can devote their united energy to fighting spam.
>
> 1. Several of those providers are primary sources of spam (and spam
> support, including web site hosting, mailing list services, mailboxes,
> etc.).  Perhaps they should clean up their own networks before
> attempting
> to mount the soapbox and tell the rest of the world what to do.

Do we have any hard statistics on this?  I work for one of the above
and we fight internal spam hard. Of course to be fair, we would need
to get the results normalized by the subscriber base.

I keep hearing about how several of the above are primary sources,
but rigorous data are hard to come by.

For some numbers, please see the presentation by Carl Hutzler, director
of anti-spam at AOL, given at NANOG in chicago a some months ago.

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/pdf/hutzler.pdf

/vijay

> 2. SPF/domainkeys/et.al. are moot.  Spammers have already developed a
> number of methods to work around them, and the only reason we haven't
> seen
> these on a large scale (to date) is that there simply hasn't been any
> need
> for spammers to deploy them.  Note as well that SPF/domainkeys et.al.
> only
> deal with SMTP spam -- thus severely limiting their applicability.
>
> 3. The proposals about rate-limiting demonstrate just how amazingly
> out-of-touch these people are with current spammer strategies and
> tactics.
> Implementation of these would do NOTHING to stop spam, while having a
> devastating effect on legitimate mailing lists -- which are some of the
> Internet's most valuable resources.
>
> ---Rsk
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as vgill () vijaygill com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: 
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/