Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: OT Spam

Juhana Sadeharju schrieb:

>>From: Kai Vehmanen <kvehmanen@email-addr-hidden>
>>
>>I used my previous address for +10 years and it is now getting 200-400
>>spams a day. Sure I can filter it, but looking for false-positives is just
>>impossible with this much spam coming in.
>>
>>
>
>Have you noticed how experts (like the one who won the Millenium
>award, Lee something) promotes only filter technologies (because they
>sell the filtering software)?
>
>Filters will not be a solution because the spam still goes
>through the whole network. The spam is deleted only at the
>destination. Over 2/3 of the mail traffic is now spam.
>(And that could be based on mail counts, not on mail sizes.
>Spams have large attachments.)
>
>They should filter at ISP which gives the feed to the spammer.
>If the ISP receives a mail with 100000 addresses or 100000 mails,
>then the mails are deleted right at the source.
>
>
a) they do not send mails with 100.000 recipients or so.
in fact, many mail-server operators will not allow this.

they could run their own mailserver, but they also do not
do this, cousa traffic costs money.

what they in fact do, is to run small-sized mailservers integrated in
viruses and trojan horses and so on. (some hackers have just been
arrested for programming an virus with this and other features.
the ``other features '' were they could use the infected computers
for an DDOS style attack, and they killed some ISP that was housing
the homepage of the ``office of homeland security '')

b) under some jurisdictions (eg. here in germany) it is illegal to
filter mails away not delivering them. The only possible thing is to
filter spam into some seperate folder.

>Better would be if the whole mail system would be moved to use
>p2p technology
>
but then my computer needs to be always running and online.

>or a handshaking tech (mailman seems to use some
>sort of manual handshaking in the subscription procedure). They
>would not filter the spam but validity of the sender would become
>verified. I have never understood why somebody should be able to
>send me a mail anonymously.
>
>
if i want for example tell somebody he's an total asshole,
but i know he would issue an lawsuit on me if i do so, i want
to be able to send anonymous mails. ok, this is not a very good
example, but there are 100 more reasons

>Juhana
>
>
Tommy
Received on Sun Apr 10 00:15:12 2005