Do you have any idea how to unsubscribe from this list? I have tried numerous
times but can't get Majordomo to do it. I've tried sending "unsubscribe ietf"
in subject and body to Majordomo(_at_)ieft(_dot_)org,
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
Since the list won't stop sending me email, I guess I will respond one more
time... (was going to send privately as I have been with Dean debate... but
what the heck!)
Already been done, and better - Consider a virus that installs an open proxy
for spammers to use. Do the lit review yourself if you can't name which
one(s)
did this (yes, more than one has).l
No this is not the same as what I described. The virus must run autonomously
in order to have the effect at the scale I described.
Do the lit review for which famous viruses created havoc by sending around
other attachment at random off a person's disk.
Viral attachments are easily to block, so you would not want an attachment in
the outgoing spam. Reread what I wrote last post.
However, keep in mind that the spam can't be TOO randomized and still
convey a message
Conveying a message wasn't what I suggested a the virus could do. I proposed
it would simply disrupt antispam systems and wreck havoc on the email system.
It is a macho thing, such as the "ILOVEU" virus from the Philippines. I should
disclose that I am currently visiting the Philippines for a conference on this
(check my IP address). With a truely random content (except normal words and
word distribution), and with a huge volume, you need not care if any one reads
it. The only point would be to get past the antispam systems and users who
were formerly getting 90% antispam would be seeing more like 10% (missing a
zero in my previous post) antispam and 90% spam.
Already being done: Consider the following obfuscations seen in today's spam
No I meant truely random order of *normal* words. I usually mean what I
write. The *normal* words are needed to avoid Bayesian.
We're quite aware of the architectural problems. We're also aware of exactly
what it would take to deploy a solution....
Nice boast but imo you have proven otherwise in the way you handled my posts,
which is going to be quite clear to independent observers, when the virus I
mentioned hits the world.
Lastly I have done the full background search at ASRG (IRTF), and I did not
find prior art for either the proposal I made to legitimize bulk email by
moving it to "pull", nor the prior art for our soon to be patent-pending
anti-spam algorithm.
Your search was incomplete, and here's some prior art.
The one you quoted is referring to "RSS" which is not what I proposed. I
proposed using POP (or what ever the receiptient prefers) which does not
require a complete overhaul of email clients. I have long ago in the this list
readily admitted that message pull has existed for a long time, such as our
past discussion of usenet. Also the one you quoted does not discuss the
benefits I proposed, such as the ability to define spam at other nodes in the
channel than the pyschology of "unsolicited" and the benefits that follow such
a logic.
BTW, I noticed there were no reasonable objections in the thread you quoted
regarding overall concept of email pull.
Make sure that the
claims on your patent don't cover anything in this message, as that would
of course be a big no-no.
You are confusing 2 different things. Please read my posts more carefully.
The proposal I made here has nothing to do with the antispam algorithm we
developed. I stated "time-domain analysis" (idea only, no details found) as the
closest thing but not quite prior art at ASRG.
Shelby Moore
http://AntiViotic.com