Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful
On (05/08/03 07:55), Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:20:02 -0700
> Alan Connor <alanc@localhost> wrote:
> > > From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Aug 5 07:07:40 2003
> > > On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:04:11 -0500, John Hasler <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > alanconnor writes:
> > > > > Still doesn't make sense to me and I am seriously considering
> > > > > writing a stanza in my newsreaders filters that will dump any posts
> > > > > with PGP sigs.
> > > > I think maybe I will start signing everything.
> > > I think that's a good idea. ;)
> > Here's how my CR program is working at present:
> You've missed the point. The point is that if you're going to drop PGP
> signed messages they want to sign messages so you'll drop them as they don't
> want your idiot ramblings on their topics.
> > I don't ever see the mail and the whole process is user-transparent.
At the risk of being picky if the user doesn't see any of what is going
on, it is not user-transparent but opaque ;)
As a disinterested observer (who currently has yet to get grips with
filtering spam - I do it manually at present) this argument seems to be
somewhat circular and repetitive .... or maybe I'm missing some subtle
illumination ... or maybe it is Monty Python ;)
> Uh, no, it is not. SA is user-transparent. Yours is user hostile.