It's an interesting concept... Now spammers will use a noticeable portion of
the CPU on the boxes they've hijacked, instead of the currently virtually
unnoticable portion of the resources, so, in that sense, it might help
identify
the owned boxes to their true owners.
However, I think Micr0$0ft c
> > Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > So either this doesnt work because spammers don't
> > actually use their own PCs to send email
> Indeed; it doesn't do any good against spammers that control large
> numbers of zombie machines; they'll just distribute the processing load
> all over the place. And
> Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> So either this doesnt work because spammers don't
> actually use their own PCs to send email
Indeed; it doesn't do any good against spammers that control large
numbers of zombie machines; they'll just distribute the processing load
all over the place. And it would mak
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> Pete Templin writes on 12/26/2003 7:18 PM:
> > You're correct in saying that OOO messages from Exchange are offensive. How
>
> It is perfectly possible for a user on an exchange system to move his
> mailing list subscriptions
Pete Templin writes on 12/26/2003 7:18 PM:
You're correct in saying that OOO messages from Exchange are offensive. However, I don't think you should necessarily consider the subscriber as the offender - I for one have no choice in what email software is run at my corporate office. Everyone in my
You're correct in saying that OOO messages from Exchange are offensive. However, I
don't think you should necessarily consider the subscriber as the offender - I for one
have no choice in what email software is run at my corporate office. Everyone in my
corporate IT group is so busy continual
It's too easy to introduce a worm that gives a spammer access to many
teraflops of unwittingly collaborative computing resources. I can't
imagine a compute-intensive puzzle scheme is going to do much more than
the average iteration of a rule-based anti-spam filter. They'll just
provide a tempora
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff Shultz" writes:
>
>I'm sure I've heard this one before, so it's not even a new idea...
>hope whoever came up with it originally patented it. 8-) Then again,
>maybe it was MS that I heard about the first time, and the Beeb is
>simply late to the game here.
Y
"Stephen J. Wilcox" wrote:
>
> > > Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message
> > > system respond to mailing list email?
> >
> > Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some
> > rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer
> >
** Reply to message from "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:23:05 + (GMT)
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3324883.stm
>
> Ok so in summary you have to use a bit of CPU to solve a puzzle before it lets
> you send email.
>
> So either this doesnt work beca
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> > Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.
>
> Then again, most of the autoresponders being sent to the list are from
> Exchange. Which is broken, period.
Most? Not "all"??
When/if I get tired o
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes on 12/26/2003 9:30 AM:
Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.
Then again, most of the autoresponders being sent to the list are from
Exchange. Which is broken, period.
--
srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9
manager,
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 9 h 11,
Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I said is that the method proposed wouldn't cut down on OOOs to the
> list.
Yes, it will, in most cases. Let's take the following message:
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Suresh R
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 11 h 18,
"Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely regardless of the presence of precedence you would never autoreply to an
> email that wasnt addressed to you personally?
And I add: in the To: field, not the CC: one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3324883.stm
Ok so in summary you have to use a bit of CPU to solve a puzzle before it lets
you send email.
So either this doesnt work because spammers dont actually use their own PCs to
send email or we are talking about a whole new mail protocol, either w
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes on 12/26/2003 9:07 AM:
Why? There is Mail-Followup-To and you can set Reply-To yourself. And you can
always edit your headers (or have a software which can do it automatically
like mutt).
Look - just how many mail clients (other than mutt / gnus) honor the
M-F-T head
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 0 h 50,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
> > There are several other tests to perform (if you are a reasonable program,
> > that is), before sending an "Out of the office" message. An obvious one is to
> > see wether your human owner is mentioned i
> > Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message
> > system respond to mailing list email?
>
> Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some
> rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer
> has a useful "precedence" value that was
This report has been generated at Fri Dec 26 21:47:48 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
19 matches
Mail list logo
