Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:19:01 -0400

At 1:37 AM -0400 6/29/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>It seems to me that the members of the group are looking at the spam 
>problem from two different angles:
>
>1. Network Abuse - some people including Barry Shain and Eric 
>Brunner specifically, have been proposing that we look at the entire 
>spam problem as one of network abuse. The Internet in general, and 
>SMTP in particular, have been built as open systems trusting all 
>network users to behave themselves. Spam is caused by those users 
>abusing the network and its resources.

I've been thinking about this every since Barry posted is "call every 
phone" mail.  And it seems to me that there is another way to look at 
solving the problem.  Or rather, not _solving_ the problem, but 
addressing it.

How about technical solutions (and DCC is an example of this) for 
detecting spam in progress.  In other words.  When some set of 
machines start spewing millions of messages, why shouldn't there be a 
dynamically early alert-system for detecting that.  Perhaps even one 
that could be installed on gateway machines--not just mail servers?
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.

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

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:13:40 -0400

At 01:19 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote:

>>1. Network Abuse - some people including Barry Shain and Eric Brunner 
>>specifically, have been proposing that we look at the entire spam problem 
>>as one of network abuse. The Internet in general, and SMTP in particular, 
>>have been built as open systems trusting all network users to behave 
>>themselves. Spam is caused by those users abusing the network and its 
>>resources.
>
>solving the problem.  Or rather, not _solving_ the problem, but addressing it.
>
>detecting spam in progress.  In other words.  When some set of machines 
>start spewing millions of messages, why shouldn't there be a dynamically 
>early alert-system for detecting that.  Perhaps even one that could be 
>installed on gateway machines--not just mail servers?

Take a look at DShield.org