Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation.
> From email@example.com Sat Aug 2 06:52:59 2003
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:17:28 +0100, Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > I do not dispute that they eliminate spam, at least with the current
> > generation of spamming technology. I merely claim that they are far
> > from invulnerable, in particular to false positives. Some people
> > care about this, some don't, and that's fine. However, *please*
> > accept the existence of the other camp!
> I think we should get a few things clear.
> Any mechanism that eliminates spam is likely to have false
> positives and false negatives; Alan has been trying to say that his
> system reduces false negatives to nothing; I actully contest this
> statement in the face of things like klez and increasingly
> sophisticated spoofing of real email addresses by spammers.
> This is done, as you rightly state, at the expense of a far
> higher false positive rate; which some people (including me) find
Depends on what you call "false positives." I don't accept anonymous email.
If anyone wants me to read their mail, then they are going to have to prove
to me that the address they are using is their actual machine. (Or *I* have
established this in advance.)
Given the current obsession with matters of security, and the fact that it
IS, as you state above, so easy to falsify *some* headers, I think that anyone
who objects to taking a moment to offer some reasonable level of proof of their
identity is pretty silly.
The same people who will log in over and over again to a website, sometimes
several times a day, for years on end, are freaking out over having to resend
1 email, one time, to establish a communications link with someone.
Many of them won't accept a phone call if the caller has blocked their
The fact is, I believe, that most of them have commercial dreams and want
people to block everyone's spam but THEIRS.
And/or, they want to just fire off messages, often abusive, to anyone they
feel like, invading and violating that person's privacy.
Many, obviously, actually like spam, and want to receive SOME of it, but
not the rest. Experience has shown that this is impossible.
So they don't like C-R systems because they WORK, not because they don't.
I downloaded my mail an hour ago, and 14 messages went to /dev/null. I didn't
bother to check the logs, but if I did, I would find that about half had
headers so malformed that no auto-response was sent. The balance received
a reply IF they used their real email address.
Those that did use their real address and decide that talking to me is not
worth re-sending 1 mail, won't do it, and that's fine. I don't want people like
that to have access to my mail box.
Or, they were using a false address and didn't receive the reply...
A well-designed C-R program, like mine, works PERFECTLY. No commercials and
no riff-raff have access to my mailbox, which is how I want it.
The time I devote to tweaking my filters involves finding and deciding who
I WANT to receive mail from, not the endless list of those that I don't want
to hear from.
I have just persuaded a large non-profit organization to install the simple
server-side software that will allow them to transparently deal with people
using C-R programs.
It just scans for the X-CR: header and includes the string/password there in
any replies on the X-Subject: line. Childsplay.
The amount of malicious disinformation and assertions by people who obviously
know nothing about C-R system, being posted on this thread boggles the mind.
I don't get any spam or harrasing emails.
Why do YOU?
For Linux/Bash users: Eliminate spam with the Mailbox-Sentry-Program.
See: http://tinyurl.com/inpd for the scripts and docs.