On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:06:12AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Friday, May 18 at 11:54 AM, quoth Jeff Macdonald: > >> is that it's one of these anti-spam measures that only work until > >> it gets widespread enough for spammers to decide to do something > >> about it (they own enough always-on Windows spam-bots after all, > >> it's not like they're too short on resources; not retrying is just > >> laziness on their part). > > > > Having to queue messages should end up using the 'owned' box's disk > > space and slow down the sending rate. I would hope that would draw > > attention to the owner of the box. > > HEH, I think that's probably wishful thinking.
Yes, it probably is. > When I think about my grandmother, who uses the computer to type up > the occasional letter and keep track of who lives in what room of the > retirement home she volunteers for, I have trouble imagining her > taking much notice of the disk being a few gigabytes more full, or > the computer being a bit slower to download all the Windows updates > than it was the last time (it's not like she sat through that > download the last time anyway). Eventually she'll ask you what happened to all her disk space! :) > Or did you have some other "typical user" of an always-on infected > Windows box in mind? I agree that that spammers will evolve, but delaying email seems to be a better alternative than challenge-response or Derek's unique system. Having queued messages on a system that is found would probably help support a legal case too. Ok, perhaps I'm dreaming. :) -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com
