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

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

Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:43:56PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > USENET was designed as a replacement to listservs.  Given the origin,
> > lost functionality, and it's about as effective as C-R for reducing
> > spam, munging is considered harmful.
>     No functionality is lost, I get protection from spam, verification that
> they have harvested spam and the fact that it harms no one, sorry, ain't
> changing my tune.

You don't get protection from spam.  If humans can decode it, so can
the spammers.  If humans can't decode it, you're voiding functionality

> > http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
> "Additional Hassle for You 
>   In addition, you will have some hassle trying to juggle your munged and
> non-munged addresses, trying to remember which to use for each occasion, and
> having to set it back and forth."
>     No extra hassle, it is essentially the same address.

If you hit reply and have to change the address, that's needless hassle.

>     Yes, but that doesn't mean that the tool should be ignored.

Yes, I agree.  Munging isn't a tool as much as it's garbage, however.

However, what you are doing is not munging.  You just have an extra
mailbox for crap that you (hopefully) check before reporting and

- -- 
 .''`.     Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>
: :'  :    proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: