On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:13:42 +0200 "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > you appears to be complaining that the definition given > > in this RFC in fact agrees with yours, perhaps modulo > > emphasizing that the intent is to hurt the person whose > > address is forged. > > Another attempt: "Joe Jobs" are about hurting an alleged > sender, not about spamming. Joe Jobs are relatively rare. > > Forged return-paths are standard operation in spam, they > are about spamming. The backscatter is not the intention. > > Somebody who gets tons of backscatter likely doesn't care > if that was intentional or not, because (s)he's annoyed. > > Nevertheless using the term "Joe Job" is a distraction, > because it is about a limited problem, unlike the global > problem with the name "backscatter". > Sorry -- I'm with Ned on this one. Joe Jobs are Joe Jobs; the intent isn't important. Backscatter is an effect of the technique; it isn't the act itself. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf