> Depends on how often people change their email address, or how > often you need to add/remove people from your list. A lot of > people have a pretty static set of friends and relatives that > they can communicate via other means. It's the geeks who end > up having relationships with people they never meet... > as a scientist, emails from strangers are important to me.
> When grandma finally gets a machine and is shown google, and by > > some fluke finds a webpage of yours with one of those fake email > addresses, she'll wonder why you never ever respond to her. > > Not such a good solution. > > A few "don't send email to this address I mean it" can be caught by > the harvesters without (hopefully) confusing grandma or a long-lost > friend. > I cannot tell if you are arguing that it is impossible to pollute a spammer's address book by any significant factor. That may be the case. But it would turn the tables, with spammers forever trying to clean up their address lists. > I can flood your system with spam to thousands of emails to fake email > addresses in the hopes of hitting your real email address... if I use > a zombie net, I can cripple your machine (or mail server) without > really trying. In fact, the more fake addresses you have, the harder > your machine would be hit. > in the end, how would the spammer benefit from this? > Got an estimate as to how big that is, and how long it would take to > do the matching? > I think it is very very feasible to match M = 500 emails per day against N * M * D, where N is the number of fictitious addresses one owns, and D is depth, in days, of the cache. Eventually, because the tactic is a FUSSP, lol, individuals could buy dedicated router like boxes for $20 bucks that did it no questions asked. Except it would implement an anti-firewall. The tactic is to not protect valid addresses and to not try to stop spammers. Go ahead and offer up valid address and let spammers spam all that they want. The more they spam, the less effective they are. (okay, the function is a firewall, but the tactic is anti-firewall) > I don't recall if RBLs expire IPs after a period of time (compromised > As you've probably gather, I'm not to hip on these things. But I thought that anything in an email could be spoofed. That is, what prevents a spammer from making it look like the spam came from my IP, which is valid, of course :) :) with the result that my IP gets added to the RBL. > "There ought to be just one" is generally a sign that someone is trying > to exercise control -- and rarely is that exercised in your favor. > Then you must love the de-centralized aspect of the tactic that i proposed? To implement it requires one person, the user. It runs locally. Though i guess the code would be somewhat centralized. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
