IP address reputation, BorderWare

[Peter Nitschke]

Perhaps a pity that you didn't take this one to private email?

I think most of us are pretty tired of this by now.

Peter


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 5/04/2007 at 4:24 PM Rick Chadderdon wrote:

>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
>
>
>-- 
>MailScanner mailing list
>mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
>http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>
>Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>
>Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!