On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Schmitt <scdbac...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi, > [...] > > Joel Rees wrote: >> (1) These messages may be a sort of generator for phishing targets. > > You mean that those who hit the "Smack Sender" button of their mail > app show up as flotsam here and can be harvested without reveiling > the harvester's mail address ? > (This theory would imply that the reflector senders are real people > or their watchdog apps.) > > Eek. That would mean we would really have to take measures to not > let appear most of the messages in subscriber mailboxes and archive. > If we let this continue then we create a commercial incentive to > flood us.
Of course, if the hypothetical "they" are looking for a commercially viable way to harvest addresses from this list and are doing this, they've missed something much more obvious. And? >> they might be setting up a noise >> background against which to send steganographically encoded messages. > > That's a good one. > We are testing ground for a novel low-bandwidth method to control > bot nets or remote spies. Not likely a testing ground. > Ten hops over iPads, Galaxies, or WinPhones would be nearly as > effective in hiding the sender as a Tor onion would be. > > > Have a nice day :) > > Thomas > Did I say something about onions? -- Joel Rees One of these days I'll get someone to pay me to design a language that combines the best of Forth and C. Then I'll be able to leap wide instruction sets with a single #ifdef, run faster than a speeding infinite loop with a #define, and stop all integer size bugs with my bare cast. http://defining-computers.blogspot.com/2017/06/reinventing-computers.html More of my delusions: http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2017/05/do-not-pay-modern-danegeld-ransomware.html http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html
