Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response

From: "Hondin de Goot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:42:31 -0500

Mark McCarron responded:

>     > Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting
>     > subject matters that have nothing to do with this group?
>
>     OK:
>
> Mark's Response:
>
> Thankyou.

And - just for you - a final final followup:

>     The only reason why "spam" is a TECHNICAL NETWORKING
>     problem is because it is almost cost-free to the SENDER.
>
> Mark's Response:
>
> This is not entirely accurate. Spam is the direct result in failures
> of design in the SMTP protocol.

You hope.

It is entirely accurate: spam is FACILITATED by the lack of
adequate financial tracking mechanisms within either the TCP/IP or
SMTP packet/header structures, an omission presumably arising from
the fact that the designers were as remote from an understanding of
economics as it exists in the actual marketplace as you are, but it
is not otherwise causually related to the design of SMTP.

Had usable financial tracking mechanisms existed, both you and the
spammers would - everyday business being what it is - be paying for the
electronic mail you send exactly as you pay for the telephone calls you
make, often over the same packet switched networks (and as was the case
with GTE Telemail, etc, prior to the deployment of Internet technology)
and spam would not be the technical networking problem it is.

Telephone marketing is a significant social problem as the recent
takeup of the new optout facility in the USA has demonstrated, but
it is not a technical networking problem because it is regulated
by caller charges.

The only reason why spam is a technical networking problem is because
it costs asses nothing to relieve themselves.

>    (1) In the short to medium term
>
>     Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam,
>     UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their
>     upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it
>     does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial
>     or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL
>     NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost
>     entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly
>     disappear.
>
> Mark's Response:
>
> The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to
> trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks
> to do much about it.

Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until
recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed
on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the
necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so.

As I was suggesting an industry solution based on current methodology,
why are you rabbitting on about legal frameworks for any other reason
than, because of basic lack of knowledge about the actual operation of
the Internet business, you have not even begun to grasp what I wrote?

The reason why mixed-ability classes proceed so slowly is because the
speed of understanding is limited by the slowness of the dumbest or
least knowedgeable student.  Every detail must be (re)explained.
Shorthand discussion based on prior knowledge from earlier classes
and shared experience is unavailable.

> Spam is a direct result of a basic topology flaw of the internet.

What you refer to as a basic topology flaw is the sole reason why
why have the Internet now and not ISO-OSInet RSN.  The Internet has
flourished, and every day continues to maintain connectivity, only 
because of its most basic and overarching technical design principle,
one which is so fundamentally undermined by every single aspect of
your ever-expanding solipsism that it is clear you have not grasped
even the shadow of an understanding of it.  Your ignorance is profound.

> A reformulation of the SMTP protocol and implementation to the market
> place could be completed within 3 years.  [...]  You practically have
> a step by step guide with 'GIEIS'.

Does the vowel in "GIEIS" rhyme with "fleece" or with "scheisse"?  Or
is it a diphthong, combining both?

>     With a sheet of paper, a pen, a postage stamp, an envelope
>     and a public mail box it is possible to send an anonymous
>     letter, lawful or otherwise, on any subject, to any person,
>     institution or business behind a physical mail box. [...]
>
> I think you are forgeting another aspect of email, that is, it can be
> encrypted. Just because they can identfy which account the information
> came from, does not mean they can read its contents.

It is clear that I am remembering a great deal more about the nature of
anonymity than you have ever learned.  Just what, however is for me and
many others reading here to know and you to find out.

> This is how current anti-spam systems work and I do not see any mass
> public outcry about it.

What anti-spam systems?  When I look around my MTA, I see no anti-spam
systems, and were I to discover that the nice people who handle my MX
when the network here is down were to have instituted any on my behalf,
I would have their guts for a Beethoven sonata.

> Also, as I have pointed out before, governments across the world
> have super-computers dedicated to surveillance.

Governments we have to live with.  Many ego-driven simpletons,
eminently corruptible in their arrogance, we are still able to avoid.

> It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security and
> access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from
> a trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach
> attempt on their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text
> across the web
             ^^^

Uh huh.

>     Although Usenet is now largely (but, even yet, by any means
                                                    /
Sorry, missed a "not" -----------------------------

>     entirely) transported via NNTP, it is no part of the remit
     of a TECHNICAL NETWORKING group, only loosely associated with
     only one of its transmission protocols, to attempt to control
     its content in any way other than from within Usenet's own
     already well-established and effective control structures.

> It is part of this remit. The remit of this group relates to spam, not
> specific protocols. Spam is an issue that affects the NNTP protocol s
> well.  NNTP has the same flaws in security as SMTP.

You seem to have a difficulty, perhaps dyslexic in nature, with the
differences between the SMTP and NNTP protocols.  Let me give you a
clue: it is signalled in the first two letters of each acronym.  But,
admittedly, that is only a detail given that you clearly have no idea
of the far more fundamental difference between Usenet and NNTP.

> Newsgroups are flooded with spam, Usenet's current procedures have
> proved ineffective.

If newsgroups are flooded with spam then that indicates only a
lack of interest in using its well-established and effective
control structures to prevent such.

> 'GIEIS' would only assist with companies establsihing credibility
> on the internet. All companys would have to be 'GIEIS' registered
> and that requires being a legitimate registered company.  'GIEIS'
> under the 'CAA' system (details will be released in the next few
> days) would be able to retrieve company information, past complaints,
> and a complaints procedure system. Another feature of the system, is
> that it would be able to confirm emails were sent by employees from
> any company.
> 
> 'CAA' will be part of the 'Internet Better Business Guild' that will
> be lead by 'GIEIS'. All companies that pass 'GIEIS' checks will be
> awarded a reference number. This will also take the form of a link
> that will appear in a small graphic on their website. This will lead
> directly to 'GIEIS' online reporting system and list extensive details
> on the company including previous complaints and resolutions with
> customers.
>
> This would virtually eliminate fraudulent business on the Internet.

On the one hand, you really are full of crap, but on the other, I have
to admit that you have an impressive knowledge of how to pile it high.

>     Now, where's that unsubscribe button?  Ah, here i
>
>
> Mark's Response:
>
> That is one way of putting it, but I don't see anything here that
> demonstrates that you are able to bypass my system.
>
> Mark McCarron.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone

Sorry, I don't have a mobile phone.  Now let's try that button aga

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:36:08 +0000

Thankyou for your comments.  My comments are in the body of the message 
below.  This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system cueently at version 0.002.  
An update to version 0.003 will be carried out in the next few days.  
'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as 
soon as the documentation can be written.

The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis

Mark McCarron.

>--__--__--
>
>Message: 7
>From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
>To: "'Esa Laitinen'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response
>Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:50:27 -0700
>
>I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues that
>was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases.
>

Mark's Response:

'GIEIS' would not be involved in excessive port scanning.  Also, 'GIEIS' 
role one be one of protection not agression which no court would rule 
against.  A further consideration, is the fact that a country can only make 
laws for that which falls within its territorial claim.  Therefore, they 
cannot prosecute scans coming not coming from within their country.

>I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the proposal
>is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in 
>spam
>as a result would be.
>

Mark's Response:

The document assumes a knowlege in broad networking skills.  In short, the 
system secures email transmission by independently confirming sender and 
recipient.  It eliminates completely the abitily to setup an email server 
and begin sending spam across the internet by changing how email is 
transmitted across the Internet.  Any such attempt at sending spam from 
'non-GIEIS registered' accounts would result in the destruction of all 
emails sent to those protected by 'GIEIS'.

'GIEIS' then has technical features to enable to limit any form of spam from 
'GIEIS Compliant' accounts.  'GIEIS' would remove 98%-99& of all spam and 
virus' on the Internet.  The rest would fade due to the difficulty of 
tranmission.  'GIEIS' also removes 'bot spam' from Instant messengers.

>Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend 
>confidence,
>I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law.
>Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself. Even
>the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this.
>
>
>		Phill
>

Mark's Response:

I am also outlining processes and methods that puts it in a slightly 
different legal catagory.

Mark McCarron.

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. 
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess

---

From: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:57:43 +0000

Mark McCarron.

Mark's Response:

Mark's Response:

Mark's Response:

Mark McCarron.

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband