Re: Problems with SPF, solutions, and a timeline.

John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great, we agree, LMAP is of no use to deter spam.  Since this is the
> anti-spam research group, rather than some other research group, we've
> also agreed that LMAP is of no further interest here.

  That's not entirely what I was saying.  LMAP doesn't directly deter
all spam.  It DOES directly deter a large proportion of spam, and
perhaps the most problematic: forgeries and joe-jobs.  See longer
explanations in the LMAP discussion document for more details.

  LMAP indirectly deters other kinds of spam, in that it makes it
easier for people to hold spammers (or their accomplices) accountable
for their behaviour.

  On the other hand, if we're going to define spam to *not* include
viruses and joe jobs, then by all means, LMAP doesn't fight spam.

  Alan DeKok.