On 2004-06-03, Tim Connors penned:
>
> Spammers already break so many laws[1] that if if was easy to catch
> them (and it is[2]), something would be done about them, if law
> enforcement cared at all.
>
Speaking of spamming, please don't CC me. It's against the list policy,
I already get your mis
Keeping spam out of my inbox is easy; I just delete every email that
has a link to a known spam site in the body before it goes through my
other regex filters; If they do not add a site for the product they
are trying to sell (and that's rare) the other filters get it easily,
after the first co
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:24:20 -0600:
> On 2004-06-02, Tim Connors penned:
> >
> > If challenge response ever becomes ubiquitous, then spammers will
> > trivially be able to verify the responses without providing their own
> > email address. They will simpl
Rob writes:
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/05/27/tech.spam.reut
No cracked machines involved.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 11:25 am, John Hasler wrote:
> monique writes:
> > At least that method of circumvention is a serious legal offense ...
>
> If so why have none been prosecuted for it?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/05/27/tech.spam.reut/
--
Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
monique writes:
> At least that method of circumvention is a serious legal offense ...
If so why have none been prosecuted for it?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On 2004-06-02, Tim Connors penned:
>
> If challenge response ever becomes ubiquitous, then spammers will
> trivially be able to verify the responses without providing their own
> email address. They will simply do what the currently do - open up
> millions of backdoors on cracked computers, go thro
Tim Connors wrote:
richard lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:36:59 -0400:
Wow, what nice spammers you meet: give you real addresses. Mine all
use fake sending addresses, so would never receive any challenge I
sent.
If challenge response ever becomes ubiquitous, then spammers
richard lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:36:59 -0400:
> On Tuesday 01 June 2004 08:29, Tom Allison wrote:
> [...]
> > They are also a pain in the neck when you get a CR sent to a
> > mailing list.
> >
> > But most importantly, and this is from personal experience here,
> > they
richard lyons wrote:
> Wow, what nice spammers you meet: give you real addresses. Mine all
> use fake sending addresses, so would never receive any challenge I
> sent. In fact, that is why I always thought some sort of challenge
> system would be effective - it would remove 99% of the spam tha
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 08:29, Tom Allison wrote:
[...]
> They are also a pain in the neck when you get a CR sent to a
> mailing list.
>
> But most importantly, and this is from personal experience here,
> they are not very useful. I played with a CR mechanism for a few
> months on my own mail ser
Adam Aube wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Now for anybody else considering challenge-response email systems,
this is why they're considered harmful.
How are they any more harmful than autoresponders or list subscription
confirmations (like those used by the Debian lists)?
Adam
Subscription Confirmati
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Aube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Now for anybody else considering challenge-response email systems,
>>> this is why they're considered harmful.
>>
>> How are they any more harmful than autoresponders or list subscripti
On Saturday 29 May 2004 22:08, Adam Aube wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Now for anybody else considering challenge-response email
> > systems, this is why they're considered harmful.
>
> How are they any more harmful than autoresponders or list
> subscription confirmations (like those used by the
Adam Aube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> Now for anybody else considering challenge-response email systems,
>> this is why they're considered harmful.
>
> How are they any more harmful than autoresponders or list subscription
> confirmations (like those used by the Debian l
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Now for anybody else considering challenge-response email systems,
> this is why they're considered harmful.
How are they any more harmful than autoresponders or list subscription
confirmations (like those used by the Debian lists)?
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
"s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Incoming from Paul Johnson:
>> Spam Interceptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This is Skot Oakley. I am running Spam Interceptor to get rid of
>> > junk email. Please follow this link to verify that the message you
>>
>> Now for anybody else consi
Incoming from Paul Johnson:
> Spam Interceptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is Skot Oakley. I am running Spam Interceptor to get rid of
> > junk email. Please follow this link to verify that the message you
>
> Now for anybody else considering challenge-response email systems,
> this is
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 10:45:57AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Spam Interceptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is Skot Oakley. I am running Spam Interceptor to get rid of
> > junk email. Please follow this link to verify that the message you
> > sent me isn't junk email.
> >
> > http://si
19 matches
Mail list logo
