On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:27:09 -0500
Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 22, 2006 04:00:49 PM +0000 Tony Finch
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> SMTP, on the other hand is an operational failure and even today,
> >> no one really knows how to properly implement and properly
> >> maintain an SMTP service. The actions of criminals exploiting
> >> weaknesses in the SMTP architecture have led to a series of
> >> bandaids that still have not proven to be effective.
> >
> > Any communications mechanism which allows you (or your
> > organization) to receive messages from people (or organizations)
> > you have no prior relationship with is vulnerable to spam. Spam is
> > NOT an SMTP problem.
>
> Correct. For example, the postal mail system is vulnerable to this
> same problem:
>
> As is my usual practice, I asked the post office to hold my mail
> while I was away at IETF 67 (this is a standard service offered by
> the US Postal Service at no charge). I took some time off after, so
> when I finally picked up my mail, it was about 3 weeks worth. I
> received a plastic shopping bag full of mail, and after I sorted
> through it, I had several bills and a grand total of three other
> pieces, all of which were prearranged (an issue of QST, a newsletter,
> and an invitation). The rest of the bag was spam.
>
Right. OTOH, the folks who send physical spam don't hijack other
people's postal meters, and the products they're selling usually
exist...
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
