On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
What I don't understand is how making them use the ISP server stops
them
from spamming any more than rate-limiting direct port 25
connections. Why
do the packets need to be reassembled in an MTA and stored and
forwarded?
What does that step buy you?
For that matter, how in <censored> would an IMAP MUA handle BCC?
{^_-}
Hi,
since a certain amount of spam I get is just bcc'd, making bcc harder
could reduce spam :)
I've been re-thinking Marc's "IMAP for sending, instead of SMTP"
proposal. And this "block Bcc" part got me thinking even more.
I think he may be on to something. But lets take it one step further.
Email via fingerd. That'll throw off the spammers.
And to slow down their spam-bot attacks, I propose we replace the
internet backbones with the long-proposed-but-never-implemented
IP-via-carrier-pigeon. We'll need an authentication scheme to go with
this. I'm going to suggest a GSSAPI method for wax envelope seals.
Perfect for carrier pigeon packets. And _EACH_ packet is individually
authenticated. PERFECT!
And we'll send preferred traffic (because we hate net neutrality!) over
bongo-net.
I think this new internet architecture will stop the spammers in their
tracks. No, really, it will.
