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

Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful (was Re: Look at



On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:51:33 +0100, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:47:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > I think eskimo.com is rewriting that localhost into eskimo.com.  So
> > it isn't actually getting any extra load from Alan Connor... it's
> > just slightly damaging the mail.  (Which doesn't strike me as a
> > large bug, since he shouldn't be posting with that address, anyway. 
> > Why people think that a fake From: but a valid Reply-To: is any use
> > is beyond me.)
> 
> It's arguably a useful (if rude) tactic in news, since, I hypothesize,
> it's much faster for spammers to harvest From: addresses because
> they're usually in the overview file while Reply-To: is not. That
> makes it a matter of downloading an index versus downloading every
> article.
> 
> That argument doesn't apply to e-mail, though.

Munging has always traditionally been okay in news. Typically, one would
munge his or her email address as foo@bar.INVALID, in a form which makes
it stand-out as being munged slightly easier.

On the USENET, too, correspondence is always done in the newsgroup.
Often times people carbon copy messages in mailing lists, especially
when a person does not wish to subscribe to the mailing list. In news,
carbon copying messages and requesting it is generally considered
unethical, so munging is not so frowned upon.


-- 
Scott Christopher Linnenbringer	    <sl@eskimo.com>
http://www.eskimo.com/~sl/info.txt  <sl@moslug.org>

Attachment: pgphyUAWrlsJN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: