Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> writes: > David Fokkema <dfokkema@ileos.nl> writes: > >>> - The premise that responses to challenges can be reliably predicted >>> is false. Legitimate senders will refuse to answer challenges. >>> Spammers can and do respond to challenges. >> >> not enough data available. > > It doesn't need to be available. If C-R gains enough popularity, of > course spammers will figure out how to auto-respond to challenges. It's > completely trivial to them, and it's well known that spammers will be to > great lengths to ensure they reach the greatest number of people. If > they don't do it now, it's only because so few people use C-R that it's > not worth their bother. So, in essence, TMDA's unfortunate creep in popularity is extremely harmful because it threatens to very quickly double or triple the damage spam causes. > Plenty of people on these lists have admitted to, and in fact encourage, > ignoring challenges. I know I've intentionally discarded them before, > and I try to seed my Bayesian filter to recognize them as the spam they > are. The only response I send to challenges is a response to postmaster to stop using TMDA. I'm wondering if there's any good resources on the web that summarize the harms of TMDA, and if so, where they are located.
Attachment:
pgp_0nMVAQDBT.pgp
Description: PGP signature