nanog mailing list archives
Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?
From: Matt Ghali <matt () snark net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:40:55 PDT, Matt Ghali said: > So you see, the reputation has nothing to do with your mom, and > everything to do with the controlling entity, her ISP. Which makes > the whole address-based sender reputation scheme almost workable, if > you ignore the scaling issues. That's suspiciously close to "Ralph Nader or Ross Perot could have been elected President, if you ignore the scaling issues". :) Yes. There's a reason I did not include a ringing endorsement of sender reputation schemes as the FUSSP; it has colossal inherent scaling issues; however I believe the 90/10 rule will make it at least somewhat effective. Other than that, what Matt said is correct - the problem is that legitimate mail can come from literally millions of places whose reputation we have no clue on.... Yes. Sender reputation on an per-ip level is a lot of state. However; I believe that sender reputation on a swip level may be attainable, and provide positive value. matto PS: Even though it's painfully obvious, I speak only for myself and no entity currently/previously employing me- Especially those kooks at UCB. --matt () snark net------------------------------------------<darwin>< The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Current thread:
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's SenderIDAuthentication......?], (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's SenderIDAuthentication......?] Ben Hubbard (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering Michael . Dillon (Jun 17)
- Message not available
- Re: Email peering Ben Hubbard (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering Rich Kulawiec (Jun 21)
- Re: Email peering Petri Helenius (Jun 21)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Petri Helenius (Jun 18)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 16)
- Re: Economics of spam Niels Bakker (Jun 13)
- Re: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?] Todd Vierling (Jun 13)
- Re: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?] Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 13)
- Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......? Matt Ghali (Jun 10)
- Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......? J.D. Falk (Jun 09)
- Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......? Daniel Golding (Jun 08)
- Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......? william(at)elan.net (Jun 08)
- Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......? william(at)elan.net (Jun 08)
- Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......? Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 08)
- Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......? Eric A. Hall (Jun 08)
- Paper on Email Authentication (Authorization really) (was - Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?) william(at)elan.net (Jun 13)