>And in fact, unless >you're able >to make the POP check frequency less than the posting frequency, you'll lose. That is quite an easy optimization to do. Study Probability Theory and Statistics (a higher level math class). > >> Whitelisting can be subverted by spammers: >> >> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/01/spam.chainletter/index.html > >> "If I were a spammer, I'd be working very hard to perfect this technique," >he said..." > >And your proposal does nothing to stop this, since it won't look like bulk >mail, >it will look like personal mail. *plonk* wrong again. That about roughly 20 *plonks* in a row for you. You have not made one factually correct statement yet in this thread. The bulkness as measured by ISPs and Hosts (those who can enforce the law in real-time) is done by looking at statistics on IPs and packets. It has nothing to do with the mutable fields of email, such as headers or content. If you don't believe that email can be reliably statistically profiled by the source ISP, then go Google before you respond. >> Yes we probably do. Just because the DCC can not measure bulk email reliably >> doesn't mean Hosts, ISPs, and other software can not. BrightMail already >is ( >> just signup for an Earthlink account and try really hard to get some >spam), and >> I will also be probably be demonstrating something soon. > >So why do we need to move off mailing lists, when the problem is solved? Because I wrote "bulk". I did not write "legitimate bulk". Current algorithms have no way to differentiate the two. Remember that was the whole point of this proposal. *plonk* you don't even remember what the subject of this thread is nor do you read my posts carefully. >> It is has nothing to do with what spammers will or will not do. It has to do > >Actually, it has everything to do with what they will or wont do. But that is the reaction, not the action. The action (which is first step needed) is done by enforcers... > >> with what Hosts, ISPs, etc are currently prevented from doing. Since they >can >> not determine what is spam, they can not enforce any law. > >And separating out mailing list traffic doesn't change matters, really. *plonk* again. I did not write "separate mailing list traffic". I proposed to "differentiate legitimate bulk email from Spam (UBE)" (see the Subject line above). And if you can separate the legitimate bulk traffic from the UBE traffic, then the existing enforcers (BrightMail, DCC, Hosts, ISPs, etc) can take action against all remaining bulk which is then all UBE. >You're left with a lot of non-bulk high-volume business e-mail (yes, you WANT >this to get through, otherwise Amazon doesn't have a way to tell you easily >about a problem with your order, or similar), a lot of person-to-person mail, Agreed all non-bulk. >and a lot of spam pretending to be one or the other of the above. Which is bulk and can now be attacked by enforcers because the legitimate bulk emailer will not be harmed in process, because it is separated. > The only >thing you've cut out is spam to mailing lists *plonk* again We've moved the legitimate bulk email to "pull". The spam (UBE) gets attacked and reduced by existing enforcers that know how to detect bulk. And then non-bulk is untouched. That is the ideal solution. Nothing orthogonal at all. You think it is orthogonal because you are not visualizing how the architecture change actually works to reduce (or eliminate) spam. >Given that so much spam is already breaking some law, why do you think "the >ISPs >could enforce a NEW law" would make any difference? Example. If I have a customer I am Hosting who is sending bulk email (which I as Host or ISP can measure statistically), but that customer claims the email is legitimate. There is nothing I can do in real-time, automated way to refute his claim. The cost for me to attack the spam is greater than the cost I will save. Therefor I punt and say "spam vs. legit bulk email is ambiguous". Whereas if I have a clear rule that all bulk is spam (UBE), then I can make more profit by setting up automated, real-time, statistical blocking. Now I drive the cost of spamming higher, eventually to a point that it is no longer profitable. Not just one enforcer or one type of enforcer, but all the examples I gave in my posts take in unison. If you want to understand any likely action, always study the economics. >> Yes my proposal depends on that fact. Once you have the legitimate email >> separated from the spam architecturally, then you can effectively increase >the >> cost of spamming to the point it is a non-economically viable activity. > >This would be wonderful, except what you're separating isn't legitimate/spam, >it's mailing list/non mailing list. The two are orthogonal concepts. *plonk* again I do not how you got so confused. Read above. >*plonk* Somebody wake me up if Shelby starts addressing the actual problem, >rather than an orthogonal non-problem.... Is that enough *plonk*s to wake you up? At this point, the discussion is getting redundant and boring. So I think I will be signing off soon...perhaps not to answers any more posts... so I think my posts already suffice to make my case, irregardless of more *plonks* that will inevitably follow this one... Shelby Moore http://AntiViotic.com