Subject: RE: The 'failure' of SMTP RE: DNS Choices: Was: [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:34:14 -0800

> From: Dave Cridland [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> On Wed Nov 22 16:34:15 2006, [email-masked] wrote:
> > VC-backed schemes cannot solve such a large problem which requires 
> > many organizations to participate in building a chain of trust.
> 
> Given the numbers of millionaires and contented shareholders 
> that existing "chains of trust" such as TLS certificates 
> provide, I can well imagine that VCs will happily back such a 
> solution.
> 
> Now, tell me, how much do I have to pay to send my email 
> under your new system, and who shall I make the cheque out to?

Under my scheme I am very determined that we do NOT build the toll booths before the highway, or for that matter afterwards.

I don't harp on about the reasons why I believe prior proposals have failed for the fun of it. The reason I raise these issues is because that having carefully considered the reasons for failure I think I understand how we might succeed. 

I do not guarantee success but I do think that I can at least guarantee a new data point that can help inform our next strategy should we fail.

If you don't have a reputation it does not make a good deal of sense to pay for an expensive certificate to allow you to authenticate your claim to that reputation.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Paul Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:55:55 +0000

On 22 Nov 2006, at 21:34, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> Under my scheme I am very determined that we do NOT build the toll  
> booths before the highway, or for that matter afterwards.

Is that because you've realised that toll booths will be ignored, or  
you just want to keep it quiet for now? :-)

If somebody deploys a system requiring "electronic postal stamps" of  
one form or another, all they do is create a whole new market for  
free-for-all SMTP and a mess that looks a bit like the IM space at  
the moment.

> If you don't have a reputation it does not make a good deal of  
> sense to pay for an expensive certificate to allow you to  
> authenticate your claim to that reputation.

Yes it does.

If I can get a certificate for $20, and it's good for a few hours  
until it gets revoked whilst I send out 300 million e-mails, and  
because I have a certificate 1% of them get into an inbox and 0.1% of  
*those* convert into sales of $50 each, I'm up $15 million. What's  
more, if everybody needs a certificate to send e-mail, they'll just  
move to another system that doesn't. The problem is not people  
pretending to be me as well, so why would I buy such a certificate?

This is not an economic battle. People think it is, because they see  
the motive behind spam as profit, and if you make spam expensive  
enough the battle will be won, but it will always be possible for  
them to make it cheap enough somehow.

The fight against spam will be won when we take the collective  
intelligence that we have about architecture, protocols, technology,  
human factors, how and why bayesian works and where it fails, how and  
why spamhaus et al work and where they fail, etc. and put all of that  
into finding a way forward to tweaking SPF, DKIM, and other hacks  
around DNS and ALSO formalise efforts to track and kill spambots.

It won't be won whilst we try and price people out of the game. It  
won't be won if we try replacing SMTP. It won't be won if we try and  
just make DNS do something it wasn't meant to do - e.g. act as an ad- 
hoc PKI.

Finding the IP of a server from a name scaled out of the capability / 
etc/hosts gave us a long time ago. In a similar way, trying to fix  
spam through DNS is going to break sooner than we think. We need to  
be open to creating new services, tweaks and enhancements. We need a  
new SMTP RFC that has MUST written all over it, and those hosts who  
don't pull themselves up to speed don't get their e-mail read by the  
bigger mail providers, in the same way that most sites don't accept  
UUCP any more. We shouldn't be scared of any of that, ever.

However, things that will never, ever work include:

- Trying to make it 'expensive' to send e-mail. There will always be  
a way to make it 'cheap enough'.

- Removing the casual nature of the protocol so that everybody gets  
tracked down whenever a spook feels like it

- Replacing SMTP. SMTP works because it fits so many needs. Ask  
everybody to come up with a new protocol that fits their interests,  
and the end result will look remarkably like SMTP. I am reminded of  
the quote that starts "Those who do not understand Unix..." - SMTP is  
the Unix of the Internet. ;-)

- Stretching DNS indefinitely to do things its not meant to do

- Backing down from rolling out a service because Yahoo/Hotmail/ 
Google say they don't like it. Fine, they can provide a rubbish  
service, that's their choice.

We can fix this without going around in circles as before.  
Accountability is one piece that might do a lot. It won't fix  
everything though. It's just too easy to break, and too easy to ignore.

--
Paul Robinson
http://vagueware.com