why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 28 13:22:32 UTC 2014
On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>>>> Please explain in detail where the fraud potential comes in.
>>> Spammer uses his botnet of zombie machines to send email from each of them to his own domain using the user's legitimate email address as From:. Spammer says it was unsolicited and keeps the full $.10/email that victim users have deposited into this escrow thing.
>>> Sounds a lot more profitable than regular spam.
>> You say this like having a tax on running a botted computer on the internet would be a bad thing.
> Heh, perhaps not...
>> I agree that it would provide a bit of profit to the spammers for a very short period of time, but I bet it would get a lot of bots fixed pretty quick.
> I don't think so. The motivations to continue to game the system are much stronger under this scheme because the profits are immediate and direct. A spammer no longer has to just hope that the advertising, phishing or whatever they are up to is acted upon by the user, instead they get a somewhat immediate cash payout that's not dependent on the user.
This assumes a different economic model of SPAM that I have been lead to believe exists.
My understanding is that the people sending the SPAM get paid immediately and that the people paying them to send it are the ones hoping that the advertising/phishing/etc. are acted on.
More information about the NANOG