[ietf-dkim] on the scope and necessity of threat analysis
mike at mtcc.com
Sat Aug 13 17:12:58 PDT 2005
Keith Moore wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Keith Moore wrote:
>>> If then only bad actors we were concerned about were phishers then
>>> I'd agree. When we include spammers in the set of bad actors then
>>> the situation becomes less clear. Making it slightly more difficult
>>> for current bad actors to spam might well make spam considerably more
>>> attractive for a much larger group of bad actors who don't mind
>>> authenticating their spam.
>> I'm sorry, but I do not see how this follows at all. Spammers are
>> completely at liberty to identify themselves today. They don't
>> have to forge their addresses, so why don't they join the fun
> Many of them are doing so, which is why so many SPF messages are spam.
> You appear to be assuming that the same bad actors who are spamming
> today will be the ones who are spamming tomorrow. I am assuming that
> there is a much larger set of people/companies who would like to spam,
> but aren't doing much spamming now because under the current set of
> conditions so much spam is trashy. Those people want to "raise the bar"
> to discourage the current spammers in order to make it more acceptable
> for them to spam. These people don't believe the products they want to
> sell you are trashy, and they don't believe they have anything to hide.
> But they still want to fill up your inbox with messages that will get
> in the way of communications you want to participate in. Some of them
> even believe that they have a right to fill up your inbox with such
And I have the right to put them on my blacklist and tell all
my friends. And I don't even need to guess where they are
since they'll be using a name binding rather than hiding behind
a zombie army.
Really, you said that it would make things *worse*. I must have
missed the quod erat demonstrandum.
More information about the ietf-dkim