Re: [OT] Yahoo's Antispam proposal
Brett Carrington <email@example.com> said on Thu, 20 May 2004 21:39:35 +0000:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Bojan Baros wrote:
> > And about the idea that Bill Gates floated out there, about solving a
> > computer puzzle that would require 10 seconds or so of CPU time to send
> > the email... Spammers already use distributed computing (some computers
> > are doing it willingly, others not quite so) to send out spam. This would
> > not create a huge problem if you have plenty of CPU cycles to spare.
> Gates' idea is being put to use every day on this very mailing list.
> Notice those GnuPG signatures lots of us seem to use? Try assigning higher
> "non-spam" scores to GnuPG signed messages.
So spammers will simply write their own pgp signatures.
After all, PGP only tells you that the person who signed the message
was the one who wrote it. Unfortunately, PGP doesn't come with an
Reemember, anything the anti-spam community can do, the spammers can
do as well. We are very much fighting a losing battle, and only buy
(with lots of effort if you want to change the way email works) small
amounts of time.
The only solution is education, but unforuntalely, 50% of the
population are just too god damn fucking stupid to get it - witness
the spam for some kind of drug with plenty of spelling errors, that
advertises that the business is being shut down by the drugs
administration, so get in quick. Who could possibly be so fucking
stupid to respond to an ad like that? Unfortunately, enough people to
make the whole business profitable.
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
}> Is "wrongest" an actual word?
} It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Which, when used, embiggens us all.
-- Jeff Ramsey, Steed and D. Joseph Creighton @ ASR