--On Monday, 13 January, 2003 17:23 +0100 jfcm <info@utel.net>
wrote:
> Dear John,
> I am afraid that at this stage (e-mail + 40 or so years)
> telling someone to read the archives has no meaning. And
> telling him to post if he has a _new_idea either.
You are entitled to your opinion. I was only trying to suggest
that people who come to the IETF list, and propose the same old,
failed, ideas as if they had just received a relevation from on
high are likely to get some resistance... and to explain that
resistance.
> Could we not think of an FPS (frequently proposed solutions)
> where each defeated "solutions" would be listed and quickly
> discussed. There would be two good reasons:
>
> 1. to provide a true list of what has been proposed. It would
> save time to all and provide a good negative check list for
> those with an idea. At least it would be new to the FPS: it
> would be added or used.
>
> 2. very often the roots of the true solution is something
> which has been half thought and overlooked. Or something
> triggered in someone's mind by another idea.
Variations on this idea have been proposed to the IESG and IAB
several times, and have not gone anywhere. I'll leave
explanations as to why to someone else, but at a minimum, there
has been a shortage of volunteers to maintain a "dumb ideas
archive" (I know, that isn't quite what you said) and a shortage
of entities willing to shield such volunteers from liability.
> PS. From what you quote, you seem to consider that
> SPAM=spoofing? Are there statistics and trends about that?
There is certainly non-spoofed spam, including the many
materials that claim one has subscribed to an opt-in list or and
others that claim they are conformant to some law which never
passed. I don't have any statistics that go beyond the
anecdotal. But, if you look at the mass e-mailing software
packages that are frequently advertised (not exclusively by
spam), most of very proud of their capabilities to hide actual
message origins and to use the facilities of others as relaying
in supposedly-undetectable ways. Similarly, as Doug and others
have observed, spam often comes with headers that are
sufficiently spoofed to make addresses and other data useless.
I assume --but cannot prove-- that all of these symptoms are
indications that spammers know that messages that use consistent
and accurate origin information are easily filtered out and
discarded and that most ISPs have terms and conditions of
service that prohibits using their facilities to spam.
regards,
john