At 11:10 AM -0600 3/15/03, Brad Spencer wrote:
spam. I suppose the spammer thinks that protects him against some
law that criminalizes sending to 100 or more recipients. The
Chines-language spam has
No, it protects him from people who restrict the number of recipients
and block the email if it exceeds the number.
He he he: Cox IS doing something about relay testers, and the Cox
relay tester just tested me again (@10:19 & 10:26.) That will be my
next email message.
Yes, I've had good success reporting formmail exploits as well. You
can automatically report the testing IP. Determining whether it was
a test or a real spam message isn't going to be as safe
automatically, but if you do it manually then you can also nail them
at the recipient address.
I'm not denying that these are good ideas. And they probably go more
towards hurting spammers than things like filtering--which the
spammers never see. As a tool that aids in driving spammers
off-shore and to fixed locations, they seem good. And like most
things--that makes them a part of a solution, not the solution itself
(I know, you weren't claming that.)
And that, I think, has been the main lesson of this discussion group.
Destroying spam is not a matter of applying a magic solution (those
IBM TV ads come to mind, if you've seen them recently). It's going
to be a set of various tools, all aimed at driving spammers into a
corner where we can hold them off while we apply a bit more
accountability to the system.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg