Subject: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please

From: "Pars Mutaf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:06:21 +0200

Hello,

In real-life, from my experience in France, people receive
a lot of "paper" spam filling mailboxes leaving no space
for important letters. Some people stick a paper on their
mailbox, where they write "No ads please". This works.

Perhaps this rule could apply electronic spam too?

Would it be possible to distinguish the SIP URIs interested
in ads and the ones who wish to avoid them.  Some
people are clearly interested, otherwise SPAMmers
wouldn't continue. Others are not.

I.e., two different kinds of SIP URIs can be used perhaps?

Regards,
pars
_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:41:28 +0100

> Perhaps this rule could apply electronic spam too?

No.

In Austria, it's legal to deposit paper spam *unless* there
is such a sticker at the door. Email spam is illegal.

In the paper version, the sender needs to be physical present
to distribute his junk: there is a direct feedback loop: if
he misbehaves, it's rather easy to catch him, yell at him,
and ultimatively fine him.

That accountability loop is almost completely missing in the case of
email spam, and once you run open SIP proxies, the same applies for SIP.

What is the incentive of an anonymous russian SIP spammer to be nice to
french resident? There is zero chance that the two will ever meet. There
is close to zero chance that any legal action will reach him.

If the spit run promises to earn him an average monthly salary every
single day, the temptation is too high. Ethics might prevent *some*
people from doing it, but by far not everybody.

As long as the cost/benfit/risk relationship is so lopsided, we will
have to deal with spam/spit.

All the technical proposals will fail unless they manage to tilt
the cost/benefit ratio. 

/ol
-- 
-=-  Otmar Lendl  --  [email-masked]  -=-
_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus

---

From: "Pars Mutaf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:16:11 +0200

>  people from doing it, but by far not everybody.

I agree with you. But this would probably reinforce the ethics and perhaps
reduce (future) SPIT. After all, when the spammer programs a robot to
send SPIT to an address that explicitly dislikes it, he knows that the piece
of code that he is writing is probably useless and unethical.
He cannot defend himself saying: "Well you accuse me but some people
need and buy our products, we are doing a good thing". He cannot say that
because he sent spam to a person who is not interested, and he knew this
by the time he wrote his code. This would also reinforce the law: he
sent SPIT to a target user, although you knew for sure that she dislikes it.

My problem is rather technical. Would such separation of SIP URIs be
feasable technically.

Thanks,
pars

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:22:01 -0700

> My problem is rather technical. Would such separation of SIP URIs be

As in,

  sip:[email-masked];spam=no

No, I don't see that being useful.

-d

---

From: Paul Erkkila <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:03:25 -0400

> I.e., two different kinds of SIP URIs can be used perhaps?

Would this be for (for lack of a better term) harvested addresses only?

If the default state was to opt-out, couldn't someone who was interested 
in receiving these types of communications just give them their SIP 
contact information? I don't think the two parties would have trouble 
finding one another w/o help.

-pee

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:26:06 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Pars Mutaf
>

You're joking, right?  Are you suggesting maybe this flag be set using RFC 3514?  ;)

-hadriel

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2008 18:27:59 -0000

>In real-life, from my experience in France, people receive a lot of
>"paper" spam filling mailboxes leaving no space for important
>letters. Some people stick a paper on their mailbox, where they write
>"No ads please". This works.

Various sorts of no-spam banners and do-not spam lists have been
proposed for e-mail spam for a very long time.  I published a draft
for an SMTP banner saying NO UCE in 1998.  It was the inspiration for
RFC 3865 in 2004.  There are some completely useless no-spam
registries in the US, notably including eMPS run by the Direct
Marketing Association.  They don't work for fairly obvious reasons,
mostly that spammers have no reason to pay attention to them.

Postal no-spam notices work in countries where the postal monopoly has
told its mail carriers to follow them, but that's not much of a model
for SMTP or SIP.

Over in the ASRG, which I chair, we're compiling a taxonomy of
anti-spam techniques, among other reasons to document the many that
are known not to be effective.  See
http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/index.php/Taxonomy_of_anti-spam_techniques

The issues of SIP spam and e-mail spam aren't identical, but they
overlap a lot, and I expect that whatever makes bad anti-spam
techniques ineffective is likely to make them bad anti-spit techniques
as well.  We can save a lot of time here.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

PS: Anyone's welcome to work on the taxonomy wiki.  Send me a note to
get a login.
_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus

---

From: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:18:29 +1100

Well, it's useful in that it legalises SPAM. It allows the spammer to put
junk in your inbox because you didn't explicitly put the "No junk mail,
please" sticker on your inbox :)

Hisham

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:26 -0700

SMTP tried that,
http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-legis-smtp-banner-03 

-d

> From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Pars Mutaf; Otmar Lendl; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please
> 
> Well, it's useful in that it legalises SPAM. It allows the 
> spammer to put junk in your inbox because you didn't 
> explicitly put the "No junk mail, please" sticker on your inbox :)
>  
> Hisham
> 
>

---

From: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:35:46 +1100

Once the spammer get his/her 1,000,000,000 receivers willing to receive
spam, s/he might leave the other 4 billion alone.

Anyway, I agree its not the best solution.

Hisham