on 6/2/2003 5:28 PM J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> > >> 'anti-spam' is the wrong focus. Spam is a social problem, not an >> engineering one. > > Sorry, I don't agree with this logic: if it's valid, then why try to > design better locks, since theft is a social problem? All human action (and crime especially) is a result of opportunity and desire. Locks and other defenses are designed to impede opportunity, while the law is supposed to restrain desire. Most of us have the equivalent of locks already, either in the form of blacklists, filters, whatever. Coming up with more of these is fine, but those will only address the question of utility within certain scopes. By the same measure, a lock on a barn door in an Iowa cornfield has different utility than a lock on the door of a Porsche in a crowded ghetto (on the Internet, of course, everybody is your roommate). Nobody makes a lock that is deployable everywhere, and which cannot be easily circumvented by a willing expert. There's no reason to believe that any particular anti-spam "solution" is going to work any better. Security cameras are another form of deterrant, and which work towards reducing both the opportunity and the desire. Think of an authenticated mail system as being analogous to security cameras. You will still want to have the locks that are appropriate for your needs, but making the presence of security cameras known is going to keep some people from succumbing to the desire, while having the criminals on tape will prove useful when they decide they want to get past the locks. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/