Re: ???????????????????? ????????????????!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:52:12 -0800
Tony Godshall <email@example.com> wrote:
> According to Jacob S,
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:48:38 -0800
> > Paul Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 23 March 2006 02:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > Scripsit Paul Johnson <email@example.com>
> > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 09:45, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > >> Listmasters have been trying to
> > > > >> identify the responsible subscriber with no luck
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not just 500 all posts from sites known to use
> > > > > challenge-response?
> > > >
> > > > The challenges are send directly from the idiot site to the From
> > > > address in the list posting. They do not pass through Debian
> > > > machines.
> > >
> > > However, in the future, people from that site would not be able to
> > > confirm their subscription in the first place if their site uses
> > > challenge-response.
> > Except that, as has been discussed many times before... 1) the C-Rs
> > are coming from uol.com.br 2) there are some legitimate users that
> > post from uol.com.br that do not have C-R on their accounts 3) the
> > problem address is not a uol.com.br account - the problem account
> > has their mail forwarded to a uol.com.br account, so the
> > listmasters have not been able to track down the problem account.
> > So you would be blocking a lot of innocent users and the problem
> > account would still be on the list.
> Do the people on uol.com.br have a choice? Perhaps they
> could vote with their wallets?
Probably. Except, I have a feeling we'd end up blocking all isps and
large businesses and only allow traffic from personally owned domains.
Not that that's an entirely bad thing, though... :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v126.96.36.199 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----