IP address reputation, BorderWare

[Rick Chadderdon]

Res wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Rick Chadderdon wrote:
>
>> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that 
>> my writing style is not clear enough for me to make a point to you.  Our
>
> Rick you've made your point, you dont like  people using it,


That's *not* my point.  That's merely a related fact.  The point I was 
trying to make was *why* I don't like it.  And the discussion I was 
trying to get from you was philosophical.  I wanted to know whether you 
justify all behavior based upon the *amount* of effect it has on others 
or upon whether it has any unjustified effect at all.  Whether a 
third-party effect is the same as a direct response.  I have repeatedly 
stated that if this was the norm, I'd have no problem with it.   It is 
not.  It is an add-on tossed into the war on spam which is so easily 
circumvented that as soon as it becomes effective for more than a 
handful of people, the spammers will respond by *using it as a tool to 
make their spam delivery more efficient*.  (Which basically means that 
if it was the norm, it would be useless.)

Again, if effectiveness is the measure of justification for anti-spam 
tools, then TMDA should be used by everyone, right?  It forces spammers 
to use a server that will be there long enough to respond, and if 
spammers were to begin using an automatic response system, the same 
anti-ocr techniques they use in their image spam could be used to defeat 
the spammers by including obfuscated captcha images in the TMDA 
challenge message.  If you don't care about the impact on innocent third 
parties, challenge-response is a great tool.  The fact that you aren't 
sitting here advocating the use of TMDA implies that you do justify the 
use of a tool by the amount of collateral damage rather than the fact 
that the damage exists at all.  If third-party impact doesn't enter into 
your decision not to advocate challenge-response techniques - say you're 
going entirely on the impact on speed of delivery - then I'd like to 
know.  I want to know *why we disagree*, not just be told "get used to 
it 'cause people are going to do it."  Oh, and if you *do* advocate 
challenge-response, I'd kind of like to know that, too, 'cause that 
would tell me a lot...  :)

I want to understand how other people think, and, sometimes, whether 
they think at all.

*That* is my point.


>> If you're being deliberately obtuse for the joy of argument, please 
>> don't bother - I don't enjoy that kind of fight, anymore.
>
> No, but you are starting to come accross as one who accuses others of 
> not seeing your point or argueing 'for the sake of it' because we will 
> not turn around and say its a bad thing because some see it as a good 
> thing.


No, I don't expect agreement.  I merely want you to explain how you 
justify the use of one third-party invasive tool over another.  I 
suspect that it's the degree of impact which you use to make your 
decision.  If so, that's fine.  We won't agree, but you will at least 
have been honest with me about why you think it's okay.  And I'll know 
that you "got my point."  And, to be honest, I'll get to feel morally 
superior.  :)  But how I "feel" shouldn't matter to you, since how I 
feel about SAV doesn't bother you.

I don't think there's much of a "we" thing going on, Res.  It's just 
been you and me for quite a while.  Everyone else pretty much admitted 
that they were being pragmatic about the amount of impact they felt the 
technique had, versus its effectiveness.  It's seemed to me that *you* 
were the one sidestepping the question and "arguing for the sake of 
it".  Good to know that it was just a difference of perception.

Anyway, this is (really!) my last response to this thread.  I'll respond 
to any further discussion with private email, unless requested otherwise.

Rick