Re: Spam blocklists?
From: Sunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] None of those things work. Most spammers don't give a shit if you don't receive email. I can attest to this by the slew of spam going to hostmaster, webmaster, and the like on many networks. What they're really selling is ten million addresses and spam software. Even if 9 million of those are bullshit, they couldn't care less. The more things with @ signs in'em the more money they make off clueless businesses. We talk about different things then :) I don't care that they make money off clueless businesses... I care that they don't send ME spam. If I can solve the second problem, the first one will take care of itself. Mark
Re: Spam blocklists?
Greg Broiles wrote: [...] Osirusoft seems to be a spam blocker, but blocking legitimate mail is going too far. I'd rather have the spam. And I object strongly to third (or fourth) parties deciding what to do with my mail. It's the recipient, or someone acting on their behalf, who's deciding what to do with *their* mail, at least from the recipient's perspective. One of the ISP's I use (only until the contract ends!!) now forces me to employ spam blocking, I have no choice. Quote It is necessary for Freezone Internet to put such measures in place in order to ensure that other mail servers on the Internet do not block traffic originating from Freezone Internet's mail servers. If Freezone Internet were to be blocked, eventually over 90% of your email potentially may not be received or delivered to its recipients. IMO this is just plain wrong. Spam is a problem, no doubt, but it's not evil or anything, and I object to people stopping my email, for whatever reason (DoS attacks are another matter). There used to be an offence of interfering with the Royal Mail (in the UK, with horrendous penalties). While the per-message cost of email is so low that that concept is no longer viable for email, there must be better ways to limit spam. For instance, limiting the number of recipients of an email (the cryptogeek system I'm working on [m-o-o-t] just allows one), or limiting the number of emails one IP can send per day (adjusted for number of users). There was an EU proposal to force spammers (who are not always unwanted) to put [ADV] in the Subject: line, with appropriate penalties if they failed to, but it didn't happen (and we got long-term traffic data retention instead). I don't know offhand how to do it, but having unelected and unaccountable people (making the conditions for) stopping my email is unacceptable. If somehow there was a limit to the number of people an email could be sent to without a willing passing on by a human, that could limit the damage spam could do, and be a better way to do it than involving stopping real (false positive) emails. A slightly drunk (you don't see me here very drunk that often, lucky someone , -- Peter Fairbrother
Re: Spam blocklists?
-- On 14 Aug 2002 at 4:36, Peter Fairbrother wrote: For instance, limiting the number of recipients of an email (the cryptogeek system I'm working on [m-o-o-t] just allows one), or limiting the number of emails one IP can send per day (adjusted for number of users). There was an EU proposal to force spammers (who are not always unwanted) to put [ADV] in the Subject: line, with appropriate penalties if they failed to, but it didn't happen (and we got long-term traffic data retention instead). I don't know offhand how to do it, but having unelected and unaccountable people (making the conditions for) stopping my email is unacceptable. Solution is obvious and has been known for a long time Integrate payment with email. If anyone not on your approved list wants to send you mail, they have to pay you x, where x is a trivial sum, say a cent or two. Spammers wind up sending huge amounts of mail to unmonitored mailboxes, which will make spamming unprofitable. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG DIY+MmmrLQhijrJvvUennc4PKuW3ydzF1s8Phfvc 2thHL52WvLYLBuy1gMvfbs8U1toNuUIIWvvhnySCw
Re: Spam blocklists?
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Solution is obvious and has been known for a long time Integrate payment with email. If anyone not on your approved list wants to send you mail, they have to pay you x, where x is a trivial sum, say a cent or two. Spammers wind up sending huge amounts of mail to unmonitored mailboxes, which will make spamming unprofitable. There is also Wei Dai's idea of b-money, I think, which requires every incoming mail to solve a problem about hashes. This could be included in the SMTP protocol, so that the server can generate the challenge dinamically (to prevent replays). This would limit the amount of spam without requiring any real money. Mark
Re: Spam blocklists?
None of those things work. Most spammers don't give a shit if you don't receive email. I can attest to this by the slew of spam going to hostmaster, webmaster, and the like on many networks. What they're really selling is ten million addresses and spam software. Even if 9 million of those are bullshit, they couldn't care less. The more things with @ signs in'em the more money they make off clueless businesses. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bill/year|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Marcel Popescu wrote: From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Solution is obvious and has been known for a long time Integrate payment with email. If anyone not on your approved list wants to send you mail, they have to pay you x, where x is a trivial sum, say a cent or two. Spammers wind up sending huge amounts of mail to unmonitored mailboxes, which will make spamming unprofitable. There is also Wei Dai's idea of b-money, I think, which requires every incoming mail to solve a problem about hashes. This could be included in the SMTP protocol, so that the server can generate the challenge dinamically (to prevent replays). This would limit the amount of spam without requiring any real money. Mark
