On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rens Houben) wrote:
> In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has
been seen typing:
> > Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those
> > signatures anyway...
>
> Why bother, when said windows machines
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rens Houben) wrote:
> In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has
been seen typing:
> > Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those
> > signatures anyway...
>
> Why bother, when said windows machines
[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B!!(B
$B(B
$B$3$l$+$i$N!"[EMAIL
PROTECTED]|1_0J>eCy6b!!:
>
> > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
> > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
>
> A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
> wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list
would be most useful. ;->
[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B!!(B
$B(B
$B$3$l$+$i$N!"[EMAIL PROTECTED]|1_0J>eCy6b!!:
>
> > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
> > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
>
> A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
> wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list
would be most useful. ;->
--
To
In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been
seen typing:
> Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those signatures
> anyway...
Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good
signatures stored on them somewhere already?
>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to
> agree with that consensus.
>
> I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and
> other header signatures systems.
Currently you ca
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:38, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, those who can afford it will hire human
> operators to act as email gatekeepers; those who can't
> will use whatever a salesman can convince them is
> affordable and works. Whether we like it or not will
> not figure into
It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to
agree with that consensus.
I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and
other header signatures systems.
Patrick
Sent to list.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:31, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote:
> Hello!
>
> W liście z czw, 10-06-2004, godz. 19:06, Greg Folkert pisze:
> > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the problems that
> > > they
> > > try to solve.
> >
> > Here, here. Agreement on all fronts. I
Hello all,
I found message below on Changelog of cvs 1.11.17.
-
SERVER SECURITY FIXES
* Thanks to Stefan Esser & Sebastian Krahmer, several potential security
problems have been fixed. The ones which were considered dangerous enough
to catal
In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been seen
typing:
> Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those signatures
> anyway...
Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good
signatures stored on them somewhere already?
>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:39:12PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good.
> While CR systems are almost never used because the people who use them are
> universally regarded as cretins, the spammers won't bother about trying to
>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to
> agree with that consensus.
>
> I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and
> other header signatures systems.
Currently you ca
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:38, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, those who can afford it will hire human
> operators to act as email gatekeepers; those who can't
> will use whatever a salesman can convince them is
> affordable and works. Whether we like it or not will
> not figure into
[snip]
> If CR systems get popular then spammers will start replying to the
> messages. Most spammers have working email addresses, so it would not be
> difficult to automate a response to a CR system. Any CR system which just
> requires that you "reply to this email" will be trivially broken by
>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are
> > important enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to
> > send them email.
>
>
It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to
agree with that consensus.
I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and
other header signatures systems.
Patrick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
You might see a few, IMHO misguided, people implementing sender
pre-authentication systems. A very few high-profile people might
actually have justpficiation for a system that passes some senders to
them and everyone else via their helpers for dealing with fan mail.
Wide-scale deployment of sender
Sent to list.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:31, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote:
> Hello!
>
> W liście z czw, 10-06-2004, godz. 19:06, Greg Folkert pisze:
> > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the problems that they
> > > try to solve.
> >
> > Here, here. Agreement on all fronts. If I get
Hello all,
I found message below on Changelog of cvs 1.11.17.
-
SERVER SECURITY FIXES
* Thanks to Stefan Esser & Sebastian Krahmer, several potential security
problems have been fixed. The ones which were considered dangerous enough
to catal
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:39:12PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good.
> While CR systems are almost never used because the people who use them are
> universally regarded as cretins, the spammers won't bother about trying to
>
Hello Alain,
Am 2004-06-10 22:03:54, schrieb Alain Tesio:
>Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's delivered, right ?
>It's not that antisocial to ask the 1% people who aren't subscribed to
>subscribe
>before sending a message.
I am subscribed to severa mailinglists on pos
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are important
> enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to send them email.
Like it or not (and I don't) that is where we are
headed if other solutions
[snip]
> If CR systems get popular then spammers will start replying to the
> messages. Most spammers have working email addresses, so it would not be
> difficult to automate a response to a CR system. Any CR system which just
> requires that you "reply to this email" will be trivially broken by
>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are
> > important enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to
> > send them email.
>
>
You might see a few, IMHO misguided, people implementing sender
pre-authentication systems. A very few high-profile people might
actually have justpficiation for a system that passes some senders to
them and everyone else via their helpers for dealing with fan mail.
Wide-scale deployment of sender
Hello Alain,
Am 2004-06-10 22:03:54, schrieb Alain Tesio:
>Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's delivered, right ?
>It's not that antisocial to ask the 1% people who aren't subscribed to subscribe
>before sending a message.
I am subscribed to severa mailinglists on postg
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are important
> enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to send them email.
Like it or not (and I don't) that is where we are
headed if other solutions
32 matches
Mail list logo
