[56356] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: spamcop.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (blitz)
Tue Mar 4 14:52:45 2003
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:52:06 -0500
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
From: blitz <blitz@macronet.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <003701c2e282$fb58c580$93b58742@ssprunk>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
The only disadvantage I see, is a single point of failure, and a point for
concentration of attacks.
Marc
At 13:14 3/4/03 -0600, you wrote:
>Thus spake "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan@fugawi.net>
> > Not for nothing, but there's so much time wasted with all these
> > diversified spam systems.
>
>Many of these systems have been shown to falsely flag non-spamming sites,
>and the more reliable ones unfortunately don't catch a majority of spammers.
>This leads to a system where administrators (or users) can locally tune
>preferences for the level of paranoia they wish to suffer from. This would
>not be possible if there were only one model or provider.
>
> > I've been reading about Barry Shein's proposals and I have to say I
> > am on board with a centralized -single- system based on his young,
> > but intelligent, model.
>
>If there were any single, centralized organization I trusted to do my
>thinking for me, I'd agree. This is also the same problem that PKI faces.
>
>S
>
>Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
>CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
>K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
