From: william(at)elan.net ("william)
Date: Mon Jun 13 2005 - 19:53:46 EDT
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On 06/13/05, "william(at)elan.net" <> wrote:
>> In part 5, I also go through why none of the proposals are really
>> "anti-spam" and promotion of the methods as such is misleading.
> 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.
> E-mail authentication's promise is that it will improve the
> overall state of the global e-mail infrastructure. Chopping
> that into smaller bits may be a fun intellectual exercise, but
> it doesn't help explain what's going on to anyone outside of
> our fairly small technology-focused circles.
Chopping off complex issue into pieces which can be worked and looked
at separate is exactly the approach that has very often been used in
research, engineering, politics/diplomacy and many other areas.
This is no different and should be easy enough to explain to
-- William Leibzon Elan Networks