Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful
> From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Aug 5 12:33:25 2003
> > > 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 ;)
No. You are perfectly right. The circularity comes from the fact that there
are a lot of people who think they have the right to force others to read
any mail they choose to send them, anonymous or not.
So they are dead-set against CR programs. Since most of their arguments have
no merit at all, they are forced to continually re-phrase and re-circulate
They also simply refuse to face the fact that if you are going to accept
anonymous mail, you are going to be vulnerable to spamming and harassment.
A telephone analogy is helpful:
They are saying that they have the right to call anyone they want, without
giving their phone number or permitting it to be verified.
This is completely unreasonable, because the caller
obviously has the callee's number and has verified it by calling them with
With the telephone you have Caller ID. This doesn't exist on the Internet.
The only reasonable equivalent is a CR program.
Anyone who finds pasting a short string on a mail that is otherwise complete
and clicking send , ONCE in a lifetime, in order to correspond with someone,
is not a reasonable person. Myself and many others do not WANT such people
to have access to their mailbox.
For Linux/Bash users: Eliminate spam with the Mailbox-Sentry-Program.
See: http://tinyurl.com/inpd for the scripts and docs.