>> Vernon Schryver wrote: >>> I've been compiling a list in the style of Jeff Foxworthy. >>> >>> You Might Be An Anti-Spam Kook If > >> Please publish this as an RFC. A collection of unworkable approaches >> to the spam problem (anti-spam anti-patterns) is useful knowledge that >> should be preserved and promulgated to reduce the Anti-Spam Kook >> problem. > >On the other hand there seems to be considerable interest into >declaring the spam problem unsolvable. > I don't think it's a good idea >to lend credibility to this sentiment by publishing it as an RFC. > >How hard is it to agree that: > >a) there will always be (some) spam >b) there is no need for it to be 50% of all mail I agree. >On the other hand there seems to be considerable interest into >declaring the spam problem unsolvable. Amazing that Vernon says working on spam is "Kook"y, yet that is exactly what he does (DCC). Vernon has pretended he is an expert with this thread, with an obvious timing of condescending the serious anti-spam thread I started: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22035.html Some disinteresting things Vernon emailed directly to me in past, which imho demonstrate he is not an expert and/or he qualifies for his own "Kook" test: 1. Vernon apparently got offended because I pointed out that he didn't realize that MD5 checksum on IPv4 was easily breakable via dictionary attack or that his use of it went his often public stated condescending policy of "do not implement half-solutions". 2. Vernon wrote, "...it is impossible, because no two people (or at least organizations) think the same streams of bulk mail are solicited and unsolicited.". I can easily find 2 streams that 2 people/orgs can agree are solicited and unsolicited. If you give me 2 streams and 2 people/org at random, then I can not guarantee every time (but eventually and never impossible), but he said "no" which is always false and certainly never impossible. That just shows you the kind of errors he makes with his logic. 3. Vernon wrote, "In the last couple of months, more than one person has invented a super duper wonderful perfect foolproof mechanism of using IP addresses collected by the DCC.". "Forgive me, but I doubt your scheme differs significantly from the others.". Isn't the desire to discover part of what makes a scientist an expert? When we stop discovering and learning, then we decay. 4. "A fundamental problem is that spam is unsolicited bulk mail, and not IP addresses...no mater how highly coorelated with spam.". The first part is true, the second part is not because we don't live in 3 dimensions. I will not tell you why beyond that, but I know why. 5. "The DCC is doing quite well, thank you very much, against the current plague, but the main event is to come.". Wonder what he means by "main event is to come"? 6. "consider me a hopeless, useless, paranoid skeptic with an insurmountable not-invented-here syndrome, and stop sending me mail" Shelby Moore http://AntiViotic.com