[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12

Why SPAM exists...
Because ISP exists.
Because in 2004 Trump was not President...

Marilson

From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net 
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 9:00 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net 
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.ripe.net/
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Why SPAM exists in 2017 (ox)
   2. Re: Why SPAM exists in 2017 (peter h)
   3. Re: Why SPAM exists in 2017 (Richard Clayton)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:11:40 +0200
From: ox <andre at ox.co.za>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1486810802.25905.anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Hello Everyone,

Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no
longer exist by 2006.

More than a decade later, spam even penetrates the very best "insert whatever 
name here" technology. 

It is 2017 and apparently society does not understand why spam still exists.

Of course, all of us know why there is still spam. 
//donning flame retardant suit (and tinfoil hat for good measure... )

For those that lurk to learn, or, for anyone with no pov on why there is still spam:

********************************
Spam exists because society does not agree on a single protocol to stop spam. 
(We do not all even agree on the definition of what spam is.)
In society, some filter emails by DNS, some by IP number (worrying about
dropping emails from co-located domains that have not updated their
wordpress and are pumping out 1 legit email for every 1000 spam, etc
etc - we should also discuss this sometime?)
********************************

The concern for "false positives" outrank that of sender reputation and is out of whack.
(and we, society, do not want to change this)

let us take a closer look at a practical (and factual) example of this imbalance:

Fact: Both Google.com and Yahoo.com send out spam (unsolicited bulk
email - where bulk is defined as more than one or two of the same email and 
unsolicited - as simply not requested or expected) 

Fact: We all receive many times more spam from yahoo.com as we do from google.com 
even though google.com transmits many times more ham than yahoo.com
(Another simple truth: We all receive much more criminal activity from yahoo.com 
than from google.com)

If you wish to dispute these simple and factual numbers you can look at
the IP ranges in public data related to abuse, as the statistics report exactly 
the same facts that I am claiming (and experiencing))

Yet, we will be hard pressed to 'drop" incoming from yahoo.com simply
based on sender score, we also do not use other RBL, that lists Google.com 
IP numbers, for drop. (as our users would have hissy fits if they did not get email
from example at yahoo or example at gmail - in fact - they may simply move
their email hosting to google... - because google/yahoo cannot be
wrong, it has to be @example_of_small_isp...

Our user(s) want to receive email from grandma, even though grandma has
just dumped 10000 unsolicited emails asking for donations to send her
old age club to the beach for "insert name of special and/or religious holiday here"

Your thoughts?

Andre





 



  




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:40:44 +0100
From: peter h <peter at hk.ipsec.se>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
Message-ID: <201702110940.44617.peter at hk.ipsec.se>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"

On Saturday 11 February 2017 09.11, ox wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no
> longer exist by 2006.
> 
<snip>
> Your thoughts?
> 
> Andre


Spam exists as ISP across the world, with some excemptions, don't do even the most basic
procedures to detect and stop spam from their networks. Shame on them ( but it is cheap )

-- 
        Peter H?kanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det ?r billigare att g?ra r?tt. Det ?r dyrt att laga fel. )



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:31:32 +0000
From: Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com>
To: ox <andre at ox.co.za>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
Message-ID: <TJ9nk8EEgunYFAxS at highwayman.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In message , ox <andre at ox.co.za> writes

>Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no
>longer exist by 2006.

he believed that the "Penny Black" scheme would work... he was wrong,
the bad guys have more resources to hand than the good guys and so a
system based on proof-of-work could not be effective

some of us explained this at the time ...

        http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork2.pdf

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBWJ7oBDu8z1Kouez7EQJJPgCfeXB+CvbraOtUzHi5FVPmio9x6XsAn2xS
XzUinA/Dr9A0/PMQfqR6LFuu
=hLfY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20170211/901d488d/attachment.html>