On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:27:09 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2006 04:00:49 PM +0000 Tony Finch > <dot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Michael.Dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> > >> SMTP, on the other hand is an operational failure and even today, > >> no one really knows how to properly implement and properly > >> maintain an SMTP service. The actions of criminals exploiting > >> weaknesses in the SMTP architecture have led to a series of > >> bandaids that still have not proven to be effective. > > > > Any communications mechanism which allows you (or your > > organization) to receive messages from people (or organizations) > > you have no prior relationship with is vulnerable to spam. Spam is > > NOT an SMTP problem. > > Correct. For example, the postal mail system is vulnerable to this > same problem: > > As is my usual practice, I asked the post office to hold my mail > while I was away at IETF 67 (this is a standard service offered by > the US Postal Service at no charge). I took some time off after, so > when I finally picked up my mail, it was about 3 weeks worth. I > received a plastic shopping bag full of mail, and after I sorted > through it, I had several bills and a grand total of three other > pieces, all of which were prearranged (an issue of QST, a newsletter, > and an invitation). The rest of the bag was spam. > Right. OTOH, the folks who send physical spam don't hijack other people's postal meters, and the products they're selling usually exist... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf