[81455] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Ghali)
Fri Jun 10 13:20:09 2005
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matt Ghali <matt@snark.net>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200506101530.j5AFU4Jd020639@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:40:55 PDT, Matt Ghali said:
> So you see, the reputation has nothing to do with your mom, and
> everything to do with the controlling entity, her ISP. Which makes
> the whole address-based sender reputation scheme almost workable, if
> you ignore the scaling issues.
That's suspiciously close to "Ralph Nader or Ross Perot could have
been elected President, if you ignore the scaling issues". :)
Yes. There's a reason I did not include a ringing endorsement of
sender reputation schemes as the FUSSP; it has colossal inherent
scaling issues; however I believe the 90/10 rule will make it at
least somewhat effective.
Other than that, what Matt said is correct - the problem is that
legitimate mail can come from literally millions of places whose
reputation we have no clue on....
Yes. Sender reputation on an per-ip level is a lot of state.
However; I believe that sender reputation on a swip level may be
attainable, and provide positive value.
matto
PS: Even though it's painfully obvious, I speak only for myself and
no entity currently/previously employing me- Especially those kooks
at UCB.
--matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin><
The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
