--- On Mon, 10/19/09, Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote:
> You're not getting it.
As far as dealing with pre-infected machines, a strong-auth that required the
user to do something (like swipe a finger) prior to using email could stamp a
message as being highly likely as having come from a human and therefore of
higher priority than something that could have been produced by a robot. As it
is, there is absolutely no reason to assume that a given email was produced by
a human other than the fact that it survived whatever Bayesian/RBL/etc.
filtering that stands in front of the intended inbox.
Of course, none of that is going to happen, anyway, so it doesn't much matter.
@Valdis, re. "tracting the intractable":
I guess I could save "there is solving and then there is solving", and that by
my own idea of a reasonable definition the "solution/s" to spam to date are too
ugly to be accused of "solving" the problem. Maybe a tourniquet analogy might
do - they've stopped the bleeding but we may just lose the limb if we don't
come up with something better before long.
For both of you, though, I am still so burned out from arguing spam solutions
in previous years that I don't think I'll keep arguing them here much/any more
(unless I start to lose my mind, in which case you shouldn't believe anything I
say). I'd bet that little or nothing has changed in the world of spam five
years from now regardless what any of us has to say.
-chris
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
