Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response

From: Paul Tenny <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:35:59 -0500

Alan DeKok wrote:
>   You've got it 100% backwards.  Everyone knows (or should know) that
> locks won't keep all criminals out.  So the locks obviously aren't
> there to keep the criminals out.

They keep everyone out who doesn't have the ability to defeat them.
For those who can, we have layered security (like firearms, dogs and
electronic security systems).

>   The locks are there as a public statement by you that people have no
> legal right to enter your home.  When someone does, they get charged
> with "break and enter", which is a serious crime.  If you did not have
> a lock, or left your door open, they would have been charged with
> "trespass", which is a lesser crime.  (obligatory IANAL)
>
>   So the conclusion is that locks are a legal statement which permit
> the justice system to file more serious charges than they could have
> without the locks.  In the same way, technological methods of fighting
> spam should be not only used to stop the amateur spammer, they can be
> used to leverage more serious charges against the professional
> spammer.

This is one of the most silly statements I've seen in my life. Locks
exist to prevent access to something. There is no public statement
because privacy and private access is something you're taught as a
child. My car doesn't have locks to remind you of something you
already know, it's to keep YOU out of someplace you do not belong.

>   Despite the recent phenomenal increase in spam, there is still
> massive opposition to *doing* anything about the problem.  I remain,
> as always, amazed.

There are plenty of people willing to do something about it but
talking isn't doing, is it? This place can never solve or even stem
the problem. It's a research group, research. Not design or
implementation. If anyone cares to make a list for that I'm sure real
progress can be made in short order. And this list has actually been
partially successful; it's shown us all the ideas that won't work, at
least.

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

---

From: "Walter Dnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:41:23 -0500

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 10:22:13PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote

> massive opposition to *doing* anything about the problem.  I remain,

  Even worse, is the reaction to those who are actually doing something
about the problem.  Deep pockets from dot-com IPO's sued MAPS into near
uselessness.  SPEWS stays anonymous to avoid the same fate.

  There are "legitimate" spammers who do not want to see spamming made
totally illegal, because they want to get in on the act once the "bad
spammers" are shut down.  The main difference between them is that "bad
spammers" break the law, while "legitimate spammers" buy politicians to
re-write the law.  This time around they bought opt-out legislation.  If
technical solutions do succeed in stopping spam, mark my word, you
*WILL* see "must carry" legislation for "legitimate marketing email".

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did