On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 13 Aug 2002, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
I currently get something like 150 to 200 spams a day. That is not a
misprint. I use tools to nuke most of it, but some still gets through
-- luckily not much.
I also get several hundred spams a day - many megabytes.
I'm slowly working on an idea (not yet clearly formed) to constipate the
TCP stacks of those sending spam.
The core aspect of the idea is to make my TCP stack as near-dead as
possible, without actually being dead, to incoming spam. That will cause
spam transfers to take orders of magnitude more time than they do today.
[...]
That's an interesting idea; it has a few IMO unnecessary complexities, but
it accomplishes the most important thing: making sending spam "cost more"
(for any definition of 'cost') for the sender.
In this case the added cost would be more computer resources, less spam
sent rather than money; but that would be an improvement still.
I don't believe we will be able to be able to send bills or really "pay"
for sent messages, at least in the near term: that just requires too much
(both technical, legislative and administrative) infrastructure. But
something to make spammers' acts more difficult would possibly help in
throttling the amount of spam.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords