[anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017

See

 <http://www.jeffreyrace.com/nugget/spam_05.pdf>

As accurate today as when written.


On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:11:40 +0200, ox wrote:

>Hello Everyone,
>
>Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no
>longer exist by 2006.
>
>More than a decade later, spam even penetrates the very best "insert whatever 
>name here" technology. 
>
>It is 2017 and apparently society does not understand why spam still exists.
>
>Of course, all of us know why there is still spam. 
>//donning flame retardant suit (and tinfoil hat for good measure... )
>
>For those that lurk to learn, or, for anyone with no pov on why there is still spam:
>
>********************************
>Spam exists because society does not agree on a single protocol to stop spam. 
>(We do not all even agree on the definition of what spam is.)
>In society, some filter emails by DNS, some by IP number (worrying about
>dropping emails from co-located domains that have not updated their
>wordpress and are pumping out 1 legit email for every 1000 spam, etc
>etc - we should also discuss this sometime?)
>********************************
>
>The concern for "false positives" outrank that of sender reputation and is out of whack.
>(and we, society, do not want to change this)
>
>let us take a closer look at a practical (and factual) example of this imbalance:
>
>Fact: Both Google.com and Yahoo.com send out spam (unsolicited bulk
>email - where bulk is defined as more than one or two of the same email and 
>unsolicited - as simply not requested or expected) 
>
>Fact: We all receive many times more spam from yahoo.com as we do from google.com 
>even though google.com transmits many times more ham than yahoo.com
>(Another simple truth: We all receive much more criminal activity from yahoo.com 
>than from google.com)
>
>If you wish to dispute these simple and factual numbers you can look at
>the IP ranges in public data related to abuse, as the statistics report exactly 
>the same facts that I am claiming (and experiencing))
>
>Yet, we will be hard pressed to 'drop" incoming from yahoo.com simply
>based on sender score, we also do not use other RBL, that lists Google.com 
>IP numbers, for drop. (as our users would have hissy fits if they did not get email
>from example at yahoo or example at gmail - in fact - they may simply move
>their email hosting to google... - because google/yahoo cannot be
>wrong, it has to be @example_of_small_isp...
>
>Our user(s) want to receive email from grandma, even though grandma has
>just dumped 10000 unsolicited emails asking for donations to send her
>old age club to the beach for "insert name of special and/or religious holiday here"
>
>Your thoughts?
>
>Andre
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>
>