----- Original Message Follows -----
> That's all fine and dandy until you consider the
> international base of these things. I'd like to see
a meeting at the Massachussets state house probably around
1998 and being shouted down by this reasoning for a few
minutes.
Believe it or not spam is not the only internationalized
problem on this planet. There's drug trade, actual
high-seas piracy, slave trade, phone fraud, investment
fraud, and on and on.
So the usual snappy response is: And look how well we do
with all that!
Well, yes, you can make the best the enemy of the good.
But there's a logical fallacy involved in trying to
extrapolate that to "so therefore we should do nothing".
I did not mean to shout anyone down by saying what I did
and trying to extrapolate to 'therefore we should do
nothing'. I also did not mean to imply sloppy writing.
For sure, it's more my misunderstanding than either of
those. Also, it was an interesting article. I only
meant that meatspace asskicking probably won't get us
very far, especially in light of current intercountry
cooperation. Also, wouldn't it just teach them what
countries to focus their efforts on similar to the
context of the article? I just hope to inject that
there has to be a technical way to do this, rather
than a diplomatic way as the diplomatic ways historically
have not worked in the other areas mentioned, so they
probably won't work here, either. Or we have to keep
going until one can be contrived. Many good attempts
have been made and there will be more to come until we
hopefully rid ourselves of the sickness others of lower
values force on us daily.
scott
(quickly putting on flameproof underware... 
I have nothing against technical solutions tho after over ten years of
a lot of smart people trying, and a grand prize of probably a billion
dollars increase in personal wealth, it doesn't seem forthcoming.
However, I do take exception to the assertion that "diplomatic ways
historically have not worked in other areas mentioned".
I think what you mean is that they haven't worked perfectly, but
slipped the semantics a little. Surely you didn't mean to say that all
efforts to oppose, e.g., the human slave trade have been in vain?
The effectiveness has a lot to do with the profitability making the
risk worthwhile (e.g., drug trade), and who the crime appeals to; some
poor, desparate people will take risks others won't (e.g., high-seas
piracy.)
Unfortunately all this reasoning might be edifying but it leads
nowhere.
Barry Shein wrote:
>...
> there has to be a technical way to do this, rather > than a diplomatic way as the diplomatic ways historically > have not worked in the other areas mentioned, so they > probably won't work here, either. Or we have to keep > going until one can be contrived. Many good attempts > have been made and there will be more to come until we > hopefully rid ourselves of the sickness others of lower > values force on us daily...
I have nothing against technical solutions tho after over ten years of
a lot of smart people trying, and a grand prize of probably a billion
dollars increase in personal wealth, it doesn't seem forthcoming.
Let me try to become Gadi. First of all block port 80 (http) 
Next block port 53 udp (dns).
Now you have got rid of amplification attacks because spoofing does
no longer work and you have got rid of all those silly users that
only know how to click the mouse.
Put every client leaking netbios into a sandbox. Dont allow them
anything but logon
However, I do take exception to the assertion that "diplomatic ways
historically have not worked in other areas mentioned".
I think what you mean is that they haven't worked perfectly, but
slipped the semantics a little. Surely you didn't mean to say that all
efforts to oppose, e.g., the human slave trade have been in vain?
The effectiveness has a lot to do with the profitability making the
risk worthwhile (e.g., drug trade), and who the crime appeals to; some
poor, desparate people will take risks others won't (e.g., high-seas
piracy.)
Unfortunately all this reasoning might be edifying but it leads
nowhere.
Cheers
Peter and Karin