[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Address lists
Carlo v. Loesch
CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Wed Jun 7 18:03:11 UTC 2006
Michal vorner Vaner typeth:
| > The top-down approach may be a little SPIM-prone, as the receivers
| > aren't given many ways to protect themselves.
| Why? Is it in any way different from using just the multicast component?
| Or in receiving it directly?
| Actually, there is protection, privacy lists.
Yes yes the thought wasn't specific to this JEP, it just occured to
me, that generally SPIM may be harder to handle in a top-down approach
than in a bottom-up approach.
Precisely in a bottom-up approach, recipients can unsubscribe from a
SPIM transmission, eventually leading to whole servers unsubscribing it,
so the SPIM no longer gets anywhere. Or if the spimming server insists
on sending something on a context that no longer has people on it, the
receiving server easily figures out this guy is misbehaving and blacklists
Whereas in a top-down approach the SPIM is distributed to all servers,
which then will find most recipients have set up privacy bans against
the sender, so the message was transferred for nothing. The recipient
server may be able to figure out, that the sender probably is a spimmer,
but there is nothing it can do to protect itself from the traffic,
as the sender isn't doing anything illegal.
| Or do you really think I should move the auto lists to another one, even
| if they are nearly the same as the normal lists?
No, not an extra document.. just two different options in the
negotiation process.. although I didn't think you wanted to allow
for changes to an auto-list. Once the auto-list is changed, what is
it then? Does it become a regular list, or is the receiving server
still making auto-changes to it?
More information about the Standards