Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: Problems with

> > Once again, I hear "if we can't do something useful, we'll do something
> > useless instead."  No. we're not going to do that.
>
> It's a bad style to call it "useless" because it doesn't match your
> personal taste. You did not give any reason for why it should be
> useless.

You must have missed my previous messages pointing out how trivial it is
to adjust spam to work around LMAP.  As I've noted elsewhere, if blocking
a particular flavor of spam were all we needed to do, we would have solved
the problem when the RBL blocked Cyber Promotions, or dialup ISPs blocked
outgoing port 25.  A scheme that only works if spammers don't change isn't
of much use.

> You expect to have a method which protects against spam directly.

No, I want a method that protects against a significant amount of spam at
least a little bit, in some way.  LMAP fails that test completely.

> However, spam can be outlawed, which is a non-technical
> method. Outlawing is/can be effective against spam, but only if you
> know whom to blame for. This requires to protect against forgery.

We have plenty of evidence against spammers.  LMAP would be only a very
minor help in building legal cases.

Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.