[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: *** bluber *** Re: Male xxxxxx enhancement formula^

On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 09:24:18PM -0700, Ian Greenhoe wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 22:49 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:57:06PM -0700, Ian Greenhoe wrote:
> <snip>
> > > My experience is the *exact* opposite.  Personally, I'd rather have to
> > > deal with a challenge-response once -- which, mind you, is how you get
> > > on this very list -- then have to deal with the hordes of spam that you
> > > (and many others) are complaining about.
> > 
> > C/R Systems are just as bad as spam.
> I have to disagree with you.  Spam comes from nowhere.  C/R is in direct
> response to something that you did.

There has been heated debate on comp.mail.misc about C/R systems.

There is a "Fighting email spam and anti-UBE pointers" posting which is
posted to comp.mail.misc, comp.answers, news.answers 2 times a month.


"Challenge-Response system is based on false assumption that sender's
address can be used for authentication. It cannot and thus any C-R
system will contribute nothing else by amplifying the spam problem."


Reply to: