Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the

> If FairUCE can't verify sender identity, then it goes into > challenge-response mode, sending a challenge email to the sender, Let me rephrase that more accurately: "...spamming everyone who has been so unfortunate as to have their address forged into a mail message..." Cha

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the

bly wrong piece > for spreading the rumour, after all it was quite > sensationalist: > > “Spamming spammers? > IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back > to the computers > that sent them. > March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST > > NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IB

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the

g the rumour, after all it was quite sensationalist: “Spamming spammers? IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them. March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the

"Revenge" methods won't work against spam. Spammers may be using "owned" machines belonging to a "botnet". The sysadmins of the infected servers may not even to know that their systems are serving to spammers. So attacking back the spam sources, besides ethical and legal reasons, may be futile and

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the

quite sensationalist: “Spamming spammers? IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them. March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them. The new IBM (Res

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote: > http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ If this write-up is accurate, then this is incredibly stupid in multiple ways and on multiple levels. I *hope* that this is just a misperception based on poor writing and that nobo

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Why even bother responding. Just imagine frontbridge (using them an example, I have no affiliation with them) responding to each and every spam they block..something like 7 terrabytes of data per week or so. I guess this is one way to justify for more b

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them

* Colin Johnston: > The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match > the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the > exploited machine patching in the process. Doesn't work reliably. A lot of bots close the attack vector they used, to prevent

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them

The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the exploited machine patching in the process. I managed to setup such a system a while ago with nimda traffic however I could not a find a software tool whi

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them

* Andreas Ott: > http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ > > And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't > accept mail. [...] The CNN article tries to describe IBM's proposed system, but fails badly. IBM's description is available at:

IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't accept mail. I still consider it silly to absorb the sender's bandwidth like this (and all transits' bandwidth until someone is smart enough to put a filter up). -andreas --