Unfortunately, the only way to address spam is to make it unprofitable:
I have been wondering whether we're spending too much effort on the delivery side of the equation, and not enough time on the money-changing-hands part of the equation.
For example, if I had a 'bot that replied to every spam message that it got, filling in phishing web forms with bogus names, SSN's, credit card numbers, etc; then maybe it would cost the spammers more in terms of time to filter through the junk in order to get the real suckers' info.
Basically, by drowning them in noise, we'd be giving them a taste of their own medicine.
Another example I recall that raises the price of spam is the case where someone published a spammer's home address on the internet, and suddenly the guy was being harassed from every angle.
Alan . -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
