Lazy network operators - NOT

Mon Apr 19 01:16:42 UTC 2004

Lou Katz wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, Jerry Eyers wrote:
> >
> > >Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforce
> > >acceptable use policies by the service provider.
> >
> > I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
> >
> > Spamming exists because spamming works.  Why do spammers send
> > out millions of emails?  Because thousands of people click, look at, and
> > subscribe to services and products being spewed by the spammers.
> >
> > If spamming didn't sell products, spamming would die off.  We must
> > educate the users to not do anything with spam but delete it.  As from
> > the sucess of infomercials on television shows, that won't happen
> > anytime soon.
> >
> 
> I think you are 'right on'. I offer this observation, first
> triggered by a third-hand report from some sociologists:

Perhaps you'd both care to provide a methodology whereby the same fools
who respond to anatomical enlargement/improvement potions could be
successfully educated as to the foibles of responding to spam? All 150
million plus of them?

And then perhaps compare that required effort and potential success to
that of applying consistent global pressure on the 100 or so networks
that host the compromised machines that are the unwitting gateways for
almost all of today's spam. Unfortunately, in many cases, the networks
do put enormous effort into disconnecting compromised boxes, but the
numbers are overwhelming (240,000 on one network alone in the last 2
weeks). That does not appear to be good enough any more.

I'm with Paul.

As Steve Bellovin has so frequently bleated: "Push the responsibility to
the edges, where it belongs".

-- 
Rodney Joffe
CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(R)