Subject: Re: [Asrg] SICS

From: Laird Breyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:04:47 +1000

On Dec 27 2004, [email-masked] wrote:

> >> Your goal is to reduce the number of spam messages visible to end
> users.
> 
> That's part of it, but only a part.  Let's not confuse spam QUANTITY
> (number of messages) with spam VOLUME (number of messages * average
> size of a spam message).

I don't see how you are arguing for any reduction of volume at ISPs,
since you want to accept all messages presented via SMTP, analyze them
and perhaps reject afterwards. What that represents is a reduction in
quantity visible to the end user only.

> 
> > That's a good goal, but has nothing to do with reducing the
> amount of data processed by ISPs who operate SMTP server farms for
> their customers. Let's not mix up the issues.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> First, if we were ever to reach the state where ZERO (or near zero)
> spam messages reached end recipients, then spamming would be 100%
> without profitable return to the spammers... it wouldn't continue
> for long under such conditions.

That isn't the issue discussed. Long before your client side solution
hopefully blocks 100% of spam for all users, ISPs must address
increasing volume or change their offerings.

Moreover, I am far from convinced that spammers will stop sending mail
just because near zero messages reach the recipients. Given unlimited
resources for free, the correct response to dwindling success rate is
to increase quantity. Whether people actually see spams in their
inboxes is irrelevant for ISPs, as they still have to find a way to
deal with the spams sent to them.

>  Second, if spammers get the message that spam containing
> attachments or that is HTML-burdened has GREATLY REDUCED chances of
> being delivered and read, then they're likely to stop using those
> approaches (and those approaches hugely inflate the size of most
> spam messages).  Thus, a likely HUGE reduction in spam volume
> (including, in particular, that which ISPs receive and process).

No. Spam volume isn't controlled by HTML, you'd have to outlaw the
MIME standard, otherwise people and spammers can send image
attachments, Word attachments etc. But outlawing MIME won't help
anyway, as people can fall back on uuencode type methods, which are
plain text. The huge reduction in volume you're hoping for based on
message structure will never happen.

-- 
Laird Breyer.

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