On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 22:35, Paul Johnson wrote: > Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>> - The premise that responses to challenges can be reliably predicted > >>> is false. Legitimate senders will refuse to answer challenges. > >>> Spammers can and do respond to challenges. > >> > >> not enough data available. > > > > It doesn't need to be available. If C-R gains enough popularity, of > > course spammers will figure out how to auto-respond to challenges. It's > > completely trivial to them, and it's well known that spammers will be to > > great lengths to ensure they reach the greatest number of people. If > > they don't do it now, it's only because so few people use C-R that it's > > not worth their bother. > > So, in essence, TMDA's unfortunate creep in popularity is extremely > harmful because it threatens to very quickly double or triple the damage > spam causes. > > > Plenty of people on these lists have admitted to, and in fact encourage, > > ignoring challenges. I know I've intentionally discarded them before, > > and I try to seed my Bayesian filter to recognize them as the spam they > > are. > > The only response I send to challenges is a response to postmaster to > stop using TMDA. I'm wondering if there's any good resources on the web > that summarize the harms of TMDA, and if so, where they are located.
Ask Karsten M. Self. I have no idea where his stuff is. He has written or researched on a myriad of things. TMDA included. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
