On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:13:42 +0200
"Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > you appears to be complaining that the definition given
> > in this RFC in fact agrees with yours, perhaps modulo
> > emphasizing that the intent is to hurt the person whose
> > address is forged.
>
> Another attempt: "Joe Jobs" are about hurting an alleged
> sender, not about spamming. Joe Jobs are relatively rare.
>
> Forged return-paths are standard operation in spam, they
> are about spamming. The backscatter is not the intention.
>
> Somebody who gets tons of backscatter likely doesn't care
> if that was intentional or not, because (s)he's annoyed.
>
> Nevertheless using the term "Joe Job" is a distraction,
> because it is about a limited problem, unlike the global
> problem with the name "backscatter".
>
Sorry -- I'm with Ned on this one. Joe Jobs are Joe Jobs; the intent
isn't important. Backscatter is an effect of the technique; it isn't
the act itself.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
