At first glance, you would think that a habeas 'whitelist' would be good,
but you have to realize that in many cases, an individual habeas customer
may be using a 'major' ISP, which could either be abused, or actually
carry a few spammers. Would we want to whitelist the AOL mail servers? |-P
No,
CG carry a few spammers. Would we want to whitelist the AOL mail servers? |-P
Pick on the right people, AOL for their size generate very little
spam.
Now adelphia.net, level3 .. :-).
--
Ian
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Ian Southam wrote:
CG carry a few spammers. Would we want to whitelist the AOL mail servers? |-P
Pick on the right people, AOL for their size generate very little spam.
I still wouldn't whitelist them. ;-)
Now adelphia.net, level3 .. :-).
Do I hear an earthlink? A
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:02:04 +0100, Cahya Wirawan wrote:
find and sue everyone who misused their watermark. And for us they
have rbl system we can use to check violator, but it works only
after people get the spam and report it to them. it is not
[...]
possible to sign every emails (sent
Is it possible for habeas to make their watermark not fakeable?
because it is naiv to believe that no one will misuse their watermark
because of law, and it is naiv to think that they can find and sue
everyone who misused their watermark. And for us they have rbl system
we can use to check
Yes, it is theoretically possible to do what you suggest..
The first drawback is resources...Habeas would have a fairly heavy-duty
server to generate and validate the signatures..
CPU time might be cheap on a single-user machine, but when you're talking
about global scales, a little bit of
Wirawan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] unfakeable Habeas watermark?
Yes, it is theoretically possible to do what you suggest..
The first drawback is resources...Habeas would have a fairly heavy-duty
server to generate and validate the signatures..
CPU time might be cheap on a single-user
