At 9:36 AM -0400 5/31/00, Trei, Peter wrote:
>You don't need to get that complicated. Just pick a keyword (eg, CPUNK),
>and require it's presence in the subject line. This method has been used to
>great effect in usenet newsgroups, even if the keyword does not change for
>years.
>
>Spambot software simply doesn't handle per-address rules beyond including
>the username in the message.
>
>I've proposed this before - any bets as to how long before Jim C or Tim
>tells
>us to start our own list?
[Counting to 10 to avoid starting out by calling Peter Trei a fuckwad ....]
Your clueless insult is noted...and will be remembered.
If you read the traffic of the past few months, I have endorsed
similar plans. Here are excerpts from a recent message:
>
>I support periodic name changes. This is one reason people sometimes
>change their usernames and/or ISPs: they've gotten on too many spam
>lists. Or their phone numbers. Or in extreme cases, their countries.
>A fresh start is sometimes needed.
>
>This has happened to the Cypherpunks list. Not only are list
>harvesters finding the various Cypherpunks list names (algebra,
>toad, cyberpass, ssz, etc.), but the "union of all posts" strategy
>of the CDR ensures spam to any of the addresses reaches us all.
>Harvesters have literally had years to find various Cypherpunks list
>addresses.
>
>The repugnance toward content filtering, except when voluntarily
>arranged for, is laudable. We saw in years past that nominally
>benign "moderation" can easily degenerate into partisan filtering of
>opposing views. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the root CDR nodes
>filter messages by body text content.
>
>However, there's nothing that says the Cypherpunks list has to have
>a persistent address, with a time constant of years. A name change
>every quarter or so, with existing subscribers carried over to the
>new name, would help with advertising spam.
>
>What about people who discover the Cypherpunks list from some old
>"Wired" article which gives the subscription info? This is usually
>going to be the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" old address, and the
>majordomo variants. Those who use that address can be bounced a
>message telling them the latest list addresses. (This is some work
>by someone...I'm not volunteering John or Hugh or anyone else to do
>this. However, at some point the use of the ancient toad.com address
>was supposed to go away anyway...right now it's adding a lot of
>noise to our system. Perhaps it is time for the other CDR nodes to
>pull the plug on accepting posts sent to the toad.com address.)
>
>A second possibility is to do what many lists do: only allow posts
>by subscribers.
>
>What about remailers and other anonymous posts? The addresses of all
>known CP/Mixmaster/Freedom services could be added to the list of
>allowed posts. This means a devious spammer could still get through,
>but so much the better (at least he's using good technology!).
>
>This would screen out Hotmail, My-Deja, and similar "weak tech"
>pseudo-anonmyizers, but this is also so much the better.
>
>I'm generally inclined toward letting those who want filtering of
>any sort to subscribe to filtering services. However, spam and posts
>from those with absolutely no links to the CP community are now the
>bulk of messages (at least it seems this way to me when I delete a
>dozen such messages and only read a handful that are left).
>
>At some point it makes some sense to use _non-content_ filtering.
>Changing the names periodically will cut out a lot of past-harvested
>addresses. Only allowing posts by subscribers and via strong
>remailers will do the same.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
