interesting-people message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [IP] more on Fighting spam: raise the bridge or lower thewater?[risks] Risks Digest 22.92

  • From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
  • To: ip@v2.listbox.com
  • Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:12:41 -0400

>Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:46:21 -0400
>From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19@bobf.frankston.com>
>Subject: RE: [IP] Fighting spam: raise the bridge or lower the water?[risks]
>  Risks Digest 22.92
>Sender: Bob Frankston <rmfxixB@bobf.frankston.com>
>To: dave@farber.net, ip@v2.listbox.com
>
>
>This is a mild form of what I've been advocating.
>
>It's worth noting that we wouldn't be in such need of a "do not call bill"
>if you could indeed use Caller-ID. The problem with the phone network is
>that it is not end-to-end and thus you cannot implement caller ID yourself
>and thus must rely on the Telco's version which just tells you who pays the
>bills.
>
>I've long ago advocated letting the user just send any string. If you get a
>phone that supports end-to-end caller-ID signaling then you could start to
>require caller-ID. While the PSTN won't be able to do this it is a better
>reason to go to VoIP and SIP than just saving money -- it is about saving
>time.
>
>Letting people do their own strings, of course, makes spoofing irresistible
>though one can treat it as fraud.
>
>To make this effective one would be able to give other's keys (digital, of
>course) that give priority access. It's but a short step to the use of
>capabilities.
>
>White lists, in themselves, are too easily defeated and don't deal with
>creative use of email addresses. Here too you can use an active form of the
>white list in terms of a capability token.
>
>The real point is not so much the specific solution as the contrast between
>phone system thinking and waiting for the smart middle to save us (or, else
>Congress will fix it but good) and the Internet where we need solutions at
>the edges. The spam solutions are still too much PSTN-like but I expect
>people will learn over time that having a level of indirection can give them
>control.
>
>After all, the PSTN itself is becoming IP-based. Just a few leaks between
>the PSTN VoIP world and the rest and, well, my current image is of the ice
>dam that broke and let the sea in Canada carve out the formations in the US
>Northwest during the last ice age.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com] On Behalf Of
>Dave Farber
>Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 21:14
>To: ip@v2.listbox.com
>Subject: [IP] Fighting spam: raise the bridge or lower the water?[risks]
>Risks Digest 22.92
>
>
>
> >Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:46:36 -0700
> >From: "NewsScan" <newsscan@newsscan.com>
> >Subject: Fighting spam: raise the bridge or lower the water?
> >
> >Many software experts now believe that the best way to fight spam is not by
> >targeting it directly but instead by concentrating on the identification of
> >legitimate mail.  VeriSign executive Nico Popp explains, "People have been
> >spending all their time creating filters to find the bad guys.  We want to
> >turn that on its head and find ways to identify the good guys and let them
> >in."  The idea would be to develop the Internet equivalent of caller ID,
> >with a technology that identifies senders and lets receivers presume that
> >unidentified senders are sending junk mail.  Richard Reichgut of
> >AuthentiDate says, "It's not easy to change something as successful and
> >widely used as e-mail.  But the only way to fix e-mail is to have a strong
> >way to know who is sending you mail."  [*The New York Times*, 6 Oct 2003;
> >NewsScan Daily, 6 Oct 2003]
> >   http://partners.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/technology/06SPAM.html
> >
> >   [Once again, see Lauren Weinstein's Tripoli proposal --
> >     http://www.pfir.org/tripoli-overview
> >   -- which is a sensible approach to giving users control over how to
> >   confront the e-mail dilemma.  BEWARE of ceding this authority to ISPs!
> >   PGN]
> >
> >   [Also, see "Four Internet pioneers discuss the sorry state of online
> >   communication today. The consensus: It's a real mess." by
> >   Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon.com:
> >     http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/10/02/e_mail/
> >   She quotes Dave Farber, Dave Crocker, Brad Templeton, and Jakob Nielsen.
> >   PGN]
>
>-------------------------------------
>You are subscribed as BobIP@Bobf.Frankston.com
>To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
>Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
>

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people@lists.elistx.com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

</form>

Powered by eList eXpress LLC