> > Your analysis looks reasonable at first glance. As you mentioned,
>> most spammers aren't sophisticated enough to implement the system
>> you propose.
>
>It only requires one who then sells his code to others.
yeah -- and the more I look at this, the more I realize just how
flimsy mailbacks are. you simply use hotmail.com to subscribe a
"sucker" account, and you NEVER post to it. you then read back the
incoming mail feed, harvest addresses, and then send back the spam as
the legitimate subscribers already posting. Using the uunet.net
dialup SMTP hack setup, your spambox wanders around the IP range,
using offshore open relays, and sends to its hearts content.
That's tough to stop. Once the harvester has that hotmail address on
your list, it can grab a new address any time it wants, and there's
nothing about that hotmail address to identify it as anything other
than your normal lurker. that's trivial to put otgether in a turnkey
package. you'd only catch the stupid ones.
>Given the rate at which porn is moving offshor, especially for
>indirection sites (cf the Google spams), I don't see this as a long
>term problem.
And how many of us actually have the time or energy to litigate? And
even if you do -- and you shut down one or two here or there, that
doesn't put a dent in the community doing this. it's a pyhhric
victory at best ("our lines were overrun, our army decimated, but we
shot the general's horse, sir!")
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
We're visiting the relatives. Cover us.
