Just in case he tries to challenge response me AFTER HE sent me
a message that begs for a reply....
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Specifically - what part? I have read it in the past. It is utter trash.
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Kavadas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 2007, June 02 04:01
Subject: Re: How To Kill Spam Dead?
read the TMDA FAQ !
On 6/2/07, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Matt Kettler writes:
>> [lots of correct stuff]
>> ...
>> Anyone telling you spammers only or mostly use bogus return addresses
>> either hasn't studied spam extensively or is deluding themselves.
>
> Well, they *used* to use bogus addresses -- that was the case 2 or 3
> years ago, before Sender Address Verification [1]. Since then, spam
> generally uses randomly-chosen, "real" user addresses, as Matt says.
>
> [1]: http://taint.org/2007/03/16/134743a.html
>
> I've written my thoughts about C-R backscatter here: [2]
>
> [2]: http://taint.org/2005/09/11/012434a.html
>
> The only way I can see to have a NON-abusive challenge-response system
> nowadays, would be to restrict challenges to domains for which the
> challenged message passed SPF, Domain Keys or DKIM tests. (You'd still
> annoy your correspondents, but at least you wouldn't be creating spam
for
> innocent third parties.)
>
> None of the C-R filters bother doing that, though.
If I am replying to a sender's email and the sender is rude enough not
to let my reply through then "scroom".
Hey, Jo, come on over to my house for the <whatever>!
Jo arrives. But the usual doorway transaction fails because a new
filter is in place that orders Joe to go back home and call from home
to say he's coming.
Scroom. I'd go home and stay home.
{^_^}
