Re: LED application

[Pigeon <jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk>]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 07:43:31AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
> Pigeon wrote:
> > This is the third time this dude has posted 88k of crud to the list;
> > is there any way in which such things could be filtered out at source?
> > ie. Does the list have any sort of human editor, who could be flagged
> > if someone posted an enormous file and make an intelligent decision as
> > to whether it was crud or not?
> > 
> > Pigeon
> > 
> > 
> 
> I must have missed him.  I was using Spam Assassin modified to run 
> an email confirmation request for each piece of spam.  This 'dude' 
> has posted a couple of times, but they all get tossed into the 
> trash list.  I don't do anything with it.
> 
> It works really well:
> If you look "spammy" I put you on hold.
> If you are on hold, I send you a confirmation request.
> 
> If I don't get a response, or do get a bounce then I blacklist you 
> for a period that is configurable by me.
> 
> If I do get a response, I push that into SpamAssassin's whitelist 
> and keep you on file for a guaranteed "OK" mail for a period of 
> time similar to the blacklist.
> 
> It requires procmail and doesn't really care what the SMTP server is.
> 
> http://www.tacocat.net/howto_spam.html

Ah, that's good to know. My concern was not so much with this
particular piece of spam, but with the general possibility. For
instance, supposing some sicko posted a similar message with an
innocent title in which the images were of child porn. This would
end up on thousands of people's systems and there would be plenty
who didn't bother to read it but didn't bother to delete it either;
there would be plenty more whose spam-checking was not sufficiently
rigorous to prevent the message languishing unremarked in an
unregarded is-this-spam? box.

The police, at least round here, have a habit when raiding shared
accommodation of taking every computer they can find, irrespective
either of whether the offence was computer-related or of whether the
computers actually have any connection with the person they're looking
for. Some innocent person could thus be placed in a highly
embarrassing situation. People who read personal email at work might
be similarly compromised. I don't know what the legal position would
be, but morally the list would bear some part of the responsibility.
Remember that to be legally found innocent does not erase the memory
of the accusation from people's minds.

I'll check out that URL.

Thanks,
Pigeon