John Stracke <jstracke(_at_)centivinc(_dot_)com> writes:
Mmm, but that pours gasoline on the villagers' torches. It'd be
much more clearly a crime, since it's so obviously an attempt to
evade the recipient's filters.
Right now, they add random garbage in various parts of the message to
make Brightmail-style blocking harder, forge return addresses, use
open relays, masquerade as legitimate mail by using deceptive subject
lines, masquerade as occidentally misdirected mail, use Javascript to
obstruct investigation of the URLs they provide, use .EXE files for
the same purpose, insert misleading stuff in HTML comments, etc.
Do you think one more technique will do much damage to their
reputation? Every time there's a popular spam-blocking method, the
spammers would evade it.
If Javascript works in the recipient's MUA, then you have
...an idiotic MUA. (Yeah, I know I'm using one that supports it; but
it's turned off.)
I think you missed the point. I don't have a Javascript interpreter
in my version of Emacs. That wouldn't help me at all if spammers have
the expectation that most people's MUAs will process Javascript. For
me, their spam would be unreadable. Do they care?
--
Stanislav Shalunov http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/
But we must show them that they cannot terrorize the greatest nation on
the face of the Earth. And we won't. -- George W. Bush, 20011017