Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful (was Re: Look at
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
needlessly.
> > 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
deleting.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/MzYSsClmdIs2Ki8RAv1IAJ9R/oWrpbFWn5odxfbW93IhPJb4mwCfeEjd
g8jPAcup9OANmtJvY9MdQTA=
=RZQp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: