1998-02-18 - Re: Is spam really a problem?

Header Data

From: Information Security <guy@panix.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2ff61a7d357da4fceeafa703286a9d07229ffa9fcf8cd3fca2223a12e70f41f7
Message ID: <199802182107.QAA00482@panix2.panix.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-02-18 21:21:10 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:21:10 +0800

Raw message

From: Information Security <guy@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:21:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is spam really a problem?
Message-ID: <199802182107.QAA00482@panix2.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

   >   From sunder@brainlink.com Wed Feb 18 15:58:46 1998
   >   Anonymous wrote:
   >   > 
   >   > I see discussion of spam here and everywhere on
   >   > the net. But who finds it a *real* problem, and
   >   > why?

Why are you asking the cypherpunks list?

   >   There are nice technical solutions to this.  If sendmail didn't transport
   >   things unauthenticated it could be done, but at a cost in CPU cycles on mail
   >   servers:
   >   Have every sendmail server use a PK scheme to talk to every other
   >   server and authenticate the connection.  Have every sendmail server accept
   >   mail only from those whose key is verified.


We (NANA) already know where spam comes from,
and when we complain about it, they are terminated.

#   Date: Tue, 10 Feb PST  16:13:26 -0800
#   Message-Id: <199802110013.QAA23854@blaze.corp.netcom.com>
#   Subject: Re: Commercial spam complaint
#   From: abuse@netcom.com (NETCOM Policy Management)
#   Thank you for your report. This user's account has been terminated for
#   violations of NETCOM's Acceptable Use Guidelines.

PK authentication would change nothing.

Show a single spam with a forged IP address.

PK authentication would only lead us down the
road of everyone being tattooed with barcodes
of our own making - and incredibly dumb idea.

   It would be like requiring a smart card for Internet access.