on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:52:50PM -0700, Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Quoting kevin lyda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > rick, i think karsten needs a good long session in a pub. take him > > out and get him good and drunk. next time you're in dublin/galway > > i'll pay you back. > > He and I could both use that. And I've always wanted to hang out in > Galway, rain or no.
This all depends on how cute "kevin" is, but I suspect he's not my type. > > and maybe, you know, recommend a hobby or something - like outside > > of email? please? > > Although Karsten's quite firm on the subject, his position's almost > certainly much more thoughtful & nuanced than you're giving him credit > for. For example, please note that he said "I'd like to at least make > clear [i.e., make certain; ascertain] that anyone proceeding with a > _pure_ C-R spam response solution is not acting out of ignorance". Keep your eye on the ball. I'm about to put the "you're sitting in the witness chair facing plaintiff's cousel..." question to Jason. > A _pure_ C-R solution (as pretty much universally implemented) sends > out challenge messages to the claimed senders of mail received > (excepting those on the cleared list). In doing so, it amplifies the > effect of header forging, by sending completely inappropriate > challenge mails to huge numbers of people who never sent mail in the > first place -- which is what I cited on linux-elitists as the scheme's > biggest problem. > > Anyway, if memory serves, Karsten's idea of "direct retaliation" > entails nothing more violent than blackholing the offender or sending > him appropriate SMTP reject messages. At least, I haven't yet heard > of any high-explosive LARTs in his arsenal. Not yet. Speaking for myself: I'll blacklist or /dev/null the luser, possibly the domain, forward the challenge to abuse@ and postmaster@ domain, blacklist the site if necessary, and report all spam to the standard reporting services, organizations, and agencies. However as the prelude above indicates, it can include legal challenges, including to the developers fo software in question. While a free software license may limit liability to its users, idenmification against third parties is a whole nuther ball of wax. Jason and his fellow TMDA developers are walking a fine line. Plaintiff's counsel will find that they have been advised of this threat. What TMDA's developers choose to do with it is their own problem. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Scandinavian Designs: Cool furniture, affordable prices, great service, satisfied customer. http://www.scandinaviandesigns.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
