> -----Original Message----- > From: Bart Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:54 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: So, when do we start handling [dot] in a URI > > On 5/12/06, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bart Schaefer wrote on Fri, 12 May 2006 07:34:05 -0700: > > > > > So now that the spammers are using our own defenses > against us, you > > > suggest that we should invent the technology to defeat > those defenses? > > > > What's there to "invent"? The point is that these need to be > > identified as URI. So, convert to URI and then lookup in SURBL. > > It just seems like a useless rathole to go down. > > (1) Website maintainer uses technique X to obsure addresses > on his site. > (2) Spammer notices that his harvester failed to "decrypt" X. > (3) Spammer copies technique X and uses it to obscure his spam. > (4) SA programmer devises a way to decrypt X to block the spam. > (5) Spammer copies algorithm from SA into his address harvester. > (6) Website maintainer starts getting spam, so he devises a new X. > (7) Repeat at (1). >
Hmm... That's the whole point of fighting spam. They open a hole, we close it. Step 1-7 is the same process we go through every day in rule writing. If we don't go through that process, spam accuracy drops, we loose customers. How is that a 'useless rathole'? This cycle will never stop until people stop pumping money into porn, penny stocks, penis pills, fake watches, etc. Although if you are in the antispam business, that's a good thing. As more and more children start to grow up with computers in schools, and the eldery that never had that luxury die off (ya you doc! ;-) ), computer literacy should rise, and spammers will suffer at decreasing conversion rates. So spammers will need to increase their volume to make up for the decrease in conversion ratio. Fun times ahead I say! D
