If FairUCE can't verify sender identity, then it goes into
challenge-response mode, sending a challenge email to the sender,
Let me rephrase that more accurately:
...spamming everyone who has been so unfortunate as to
have their address forged into a mail message...
sensationalist:
Spamming spammers?
IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers
that sent them.
March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends
unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them.
The new IBM (Research) service
Revenge methods won't work against spam. Spammers may be using owned
machines belonging to a botnet. The sysadmins of the infected servers
may not even to know that their systems are serving to spammers. So
attacking back the spam sources, besides ethical and legal reasons, may
be futile and just
, after all it was quite sensationalist:
Spamming spammers?
IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers
that sent them.
March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends
unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them
, and the notorious
Mugu Maurauder
bandwidth sucking program.
You cant really blame the folks who read CNNs
horribly wrong piece
for spreading the rumour, after all it was quite
sensationalist:
Spamming spammers?
IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back
to the computers
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/
And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't
accept mail. I still consider it silly to absorb the sender's bandwidth
like this (and all transits' bandwidth until someone is smart enough to
put a filter up). -andreas
* Andreas Ott:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/
And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't
accept mail. [...]
The CNN article tries to describe IBM's proposed system, but fails
badly. IBM's description is available at:
The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match
the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the
exploited machine patching in the process.
I managed to setup such a system a while ago with nimda traffic however I
could not a find a software tool
* Colin Johnston:
The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match
the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the
exploited machine patching in the process.
Doesn't work reliably. A lot of bots close the attack vector they
used, to prevent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why even bother responding. Just imagine frontbridge (using them an
example, I have no affiliation with them) responding to each and every
spam they block..something like 7 terrabytes of data per week or so. I
guess this is one way to justify for more
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/
If this write-up is accurate, then this is incredibly stupid
in multiple ways and on multiple levels. I *hope* that this
is just a misperception based on poor writing and that
11 matches
Mail list logo
