Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]]

From: Fridrik Skulason <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:49 +0000

> Adding security in one are of the network changes the cost-benefit
> ratio for attacks in other areas of the network.  This is a very
> different statement than what you made.

It seems you have misunderstood me - this is exactly what I was saying.
If LMAP (or something like that) gets adopted, spammers will change their
strategy to stay in business.  One of the strategies not affected by
LMAP is the use of compromised machines - therefore I fear that we will
see an increase in their use in the future. 

>> In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good
>> thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad 
>> thing) ;-)
>
>  Tough sh*t for them.

Nice to see how concerned you are about security.

> By the same argument, I shouldn't put locks or an alarm in my house,
> because that encourages thieves to go after my neighbour, instead of
> me.

Now this is just stupid.  I am not arguing that something like LMAP 
should not be implemented....quite the contrary - I would love to see
something like that widely adopted.  All I am saying is that by itself,
it may not have much effect on the overall spam volume - the spammers
will switch to other methods, and to handle those we need different
solutions.

-- 
Fridrik Skulason   Frisk Software International   phone: +354-540-7400
Author of F-PROT   E-mail: [email-masked]       fax:   +354-540-7401

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

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:56:15 -0500 (EST)

> see an increase in their use in the future. 

  Too bad.

> Nice to see how concerned you are about security.

  I'm concerned about *my* security.  If someone else chooses to run
insecure machines, that's their problem.  I don't care, so long as it
doesn't affect me.

  If wide-spread deployment of LMAP results in many insecure systems
being exploited, I don't see why that's anyone's problem, but the
admins of the insecure systems.

> I am not arguing that something like LMAP should not be
> implemented....quite the contrary - I would love to see something
> like that widely adopted.  All I am saying is that by itself, it may
> not have much effect on the overall spam volume - the spammers will
> switch to other methods, and to handle those we need different
> solutions.

  Which is what I've been saying all along, and which is why I'm
proposing LMAP.

  The point is that if we can force spammers to engage solely in
illegal behaviour to send spam, then solutions *other* than technical
ones start being more useful.

  Alan DeKok.