> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Jacqui Caren-home > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction > > I would recommend that redaction be based upon the anti-spam score the > orginal message gets and what level of trust you place in the MSP. > > > Just mumbling... > > Given the fiasco while trying to report abusive (inline image heavy to > botnet/scraper > spamtraps) spam to messagelabs I would recommend redaction of all identifying > marks > when dealing with a spamtrap of obvious spam. > This includes the "name" part of the recipent which is being used by some > commercial > spammers (including the said ML spammer) as a unique "tag" back into thier > list. Such > tricks are being used by spammers and some bulk MSP's who buy in lists and > wish to > detect the spamtraps hit. Even worse are the list cleanse businesses who are > using said > tricks to generate lists of know spamtraps for resale or reuse to cleanse > commercial > list data. I am afraid that detecting spamtraps is big business and people > like ML > seem to be quite happy to help paying "customers" detect them.
I'm inclined to say the choice of when and what things to redact should be left as a policy decision. If we have suggestions or examples, that's fine to include in an informational sense, but we should go no further. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
