Subject: [Asrg] 4.a. Taxonomy changes (was: Taxonomy and List of Requireme nts)

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 17:28:59 -0500

> 
> OK.  Open proxy & open relay honeypots don't even appear.

What if open honeypots are added in under 2.b.ii.'How was it sent' As #4 "To
honeypot". This can include honeypot addresses, domains and relays.

> I favor 
> having a taxonomy 
> that examines the entire spam cycle, from discovery of email 
> addresses to 
> receipt of payment. 

The current taxonomy does not examine address collection, but focuses on
message distribution. There are a number of things that can be done by
endusers, mail admins and webserver admins to reduce address collection.
Some of this is covered in the document by the CDT
http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.pdf. Would someone like to
volunteer to lead the creation of this document?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 00:16:38 -0500

> endusers, mail admins and webserver admins to reduce address collection.

  Hiding MTA's is also an important step.  I've had reports from ISP's
whose mailers were getting killed by relay attempts.  Making the MTA's
less obvious was one method which helped.

> volunteer to lead the creation of this document?

  Here's a pointer to one ISP's anti-spam setup:

http://lists.cistron.nl/pipermail/freeradius-devel/2002-February/002131.html

  And his later followup to me, which is more on point to the 'address
collection' problem, and his response.

http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/antispam.txt

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 10:19:18 -0400

<ritual line eater food>

> volunteer to lead the creation of this document?

this sounds like an activity for the <defunct> user services area, which
has attempted something along these lines, rfc1355, rfc2635, rfc3098 come
to mind.

i suggest that a bcp or an fyi aren't interesting outcomes for an irtf tf,
and that if there is any "there" there, for researchers, that it is one or
more mechanisms that evalutate characterizations of address collection.

eric