[81511] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Paper on Email Authentication (Authorization really) (was - Re: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J.D. Falk)
Mon Jun 13 20:59:47 2005
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:59:15 -0700
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0506131352070.25951@sokol.elan.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 06/13/05, "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net> wrote:
> > No matter how the authors may "promote" their methods, most
> > people don't perceive that there's any great separation between
> > anti-spam and anti-forgery techniques. As far as they're
> > concerned, all e-mail threats are basically the same.
>
> This attitude is exactly playing in the hands of DMA which wants to
> make it seem like spam is only those UBE with forged origin data.
I'm not describing my own attitude above, so you can stop being
insulting. What I've described is a common perception held by
end-user types. I'm not saying their perceptions are correct,
I'm just saying they exist and shouldn't be ignored.
This is moving further off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.
--
J.D. Falk blong! you are a pickle!
<jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
