Eric writes:
Have you never created e-mail addresses without
ever making them public, and nevertheless note
that you get SPAM anyway?
Not that I can recall.
I did. I created more than one e-mail address
without ever making them public, and though I
note some of them receive SPAM!
Were
Terry writes:
At least one of them is a combination of letters
and numbers that I would have expected to
resist most dictionary spam attacks.
To whom have you sent e-mail from that address?
If they didn't use a dictionary attack, and they didn't harvest the address,
how did they get it?
At 4:12 PM -0700 5/30/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
Perhaps you could synthesize the numbers in a way that the carriers will
agree to? That it, sanitize out the competitive information, to
produce something relevant only to spam control in the aggregate.
The numbers are a few years old, anecdotal
On Sat, 31 May 2003 16:44:32 +0200, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They must either harvest them or guess them. For non-obvious e-mail
addresses that are never published, they cannot practically do either of
these, and so the addresses will not be spammed.
that are never
if we could make spamganging so illegal that they were eventually not
replaced, then their traffic would be replaced by bulk e-mail from every
customer of every CRM (customer relationship management) company in the
world.
I'm not sure why this follows. Wiping out the fraudulent spammers
Valdis writes:
That's one *TALL* order for a useful e-mail address.
Not really. A great many people never use e-mail for anything except
exchanging messages with friends and relatives.
That means that you can't join a mailing list for
(say) cancer survivors, or for people with persian
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Tomson Eric (Yahoo.fr) wrote:
How will the spammer's find her address?
Guessing and trying?
Online directory provided by her email provider?
Not understanding risks, she joins a seniors mail list?
Someone she corresponds with blasts an email to a bunch of
folks leaving
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
Given the above, the reason that the people who are most financially
hurt by the spam problem have not done anything about it from a
protocol level is either that they are financially stupid or that
I find your position curious for a couple of
PV once thinking that smtp would be the right answer for a global
PV population, or now thinking that smtp can be saved if we can just make
PV abuse expensive, is indicative of designers who think that the only
PV consumers are Just Like Them And Their Friends. they were but aren't,
PV and
David writes:
Guessing and trying?
That would require tens of thousands or even millions of bounces for every
successful mailing attempt. I don't think anyone is doing it that way.
Online directory provided by her email provider?
Which e-mail providers are providing online directories? And
so, whether we use esmtp as a bearer channel is indeed irrelevant,
okay, that's what I was thinking too.
but I also don't see any particular utility in authenticating either the
source IP address or the mail from address, and a fair amount of disadvantage
to both; I think we need a different
Paul writes:
the whole installed base is in incredible pain
right now ...
Oooh ... let's not jump off the deep end here. Spam is a nuisance for most
Internet users, not an incredible pain. It's very important to
distinguish between something that does real damage and something that
merely
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David writes:
Guessing and trying?
That would require tens of thousands or even millions of bounces for
every successful mailing attempt. I don't think anyone is doing it that
way.
Objective evidence indicates that your belief is incorrect.
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do a sanity check and think about how you would
spend $0.5B on filtering spam.
H, that oughta buy a lot of hit-man contracts B-)
--
David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC
See http://destined.to/program/ for online
g'day,
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
...
Someone she corresponds with blasts an email to
a bunch of folks leaving all addresses exposed,
and one of the addressees does some action which
exposes the email to a spammer's harvesting process?
This is getting more and more farfetched.
Oh,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think posting message size is quite appropriate as part of
your statistics and even more particularly as a criteria to order the
list. Unless I'm mistaken you're calculating bytes for entire message
but often 75% comes from another message being replied
The IETF_Censored mailing list
At times, the IETF list is subject to debates that have little to do
with the purposes for which the IETF list was created. Some people
would appreciate a quieter forum for the relevant debates
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:01:55PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
john, don't you have a mail filter?
Trouble is even after kill-filing the trolls the good folk still rise to
the bait so I'm just cutting 50% of the posts
How timely...
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:03:01AM +0200, Super-User wrote:
The IETF_Censored mailing list
At times, the IETF list is subject to debates that have little to do
with the purposes for which the IETF list was
... I also don't see any particular utility in authenticating either
the source IP address or the mail from address, and a fair amount of
disadvantage to both; I think we need a different token to
authenticate the sender.
knowing the intent of the owner of the host is important. we can't
on 5/31/2003 5:43 PM Keith Moore wrote:
but I also don't see any particular utility in authenticating either
the source IP address or the mail from address,
One of the potential benefits of binding IP address to the host identity
would be enforcement. A spammer may be able to crank millions
Peter writes:
Anthony, please don't take this the wrong way ...
What's the best way to take personal attacks, in your opinion? And what is
your purpose in making them, given that they do not contribute to the
discussion?
22 matches
Mail list logo
