[170506] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Mar 28 09:47:09 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1403280929030.6633@brugal.local>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:39:26 -0700
To: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:30 AM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> This assumes a different economic model of SPAM that I have been lead =
to believe exists.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> Fine, then the people paying the people who do the spamming have more =
of an incentive to pay higher rates and more spammers. It doesn't =
really matter how may layers of abstraction there are, the point is that =
the main motivator has become more attractive.
Perhaps=85 But I=92m not convinced.
Today we have more than sufficient motivation to continue to game the =
system and virtually no incentive to make the system less open to =
gaming.
While I agree this would increase economic incentives to game the system =
slightly, it would also add some rather strong incentives to improve =
security and make the process of gaming much harder.
Perhaps this isn=92t a good solution, but it certainly cannot be argued =
that what we are doing so far is working.
Owen
