[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>

> 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: pgpuoYwFRhkkL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: