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

Re: TMDA considered harmful

On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 22:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> writes:
> > David Fokkema <dfokkema@ileos.nl> writes:
> >
> >>>   - The premise that responses to challenges can be reliably predicted
> >>>     is false.  Legitimate senders will refuse to answer challenges.
> >>>     Spammers can and do respond to challenges.
> >>
> >> not enough data available.
> >
> > It doesn't need to be available.  If C-R gains enough popularity, of
> > course spammers will figure out how to auto-respond to challenges.  It's
> > completely trivial to them, and it's well known that spammers will be to
> > great lengths to ensure they reach the greatest number of people.  If
> > they don't do it now, it's only because so few people use C-R that it's
> > not worth their bother.
> So, in essence, TMDA's unfortunate creep in popularity is extremely
> harmful because it threatens to very quickly double or triple the damage
> spam causes.
> > Plenty of people on these lists have admitted to, and in fact encourage,
> > ignoring challenges.  I know I've intentionally discarded them before,
> > and I try to seed my Bayesian filter to recognize them as the spam they
> > are.
> The only response I send to challenges is a response to postmaster to
> stop using TMDA.  I'm wondering if there's any good resources on the web
> that summarize the harms of TMDA, and if so, where they are located.

Ask Karsten M. Self. I have no idea where his stuff is. He has written
or researched on a myriad of things. TMDA included.
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net

The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster:  Linux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: