Quoting Oron Peled, from the post of Mon, 04 Jul:
>
> Other than that, it should be noted that MS "acceptance" of public
> standards was always in part of its E^3 (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish).
>
> [A recent victim is, of course, Kerberos].
I'm not sure what you mean. I have here a LAN of Linux
Gadi Evron wrote:
First off, I wish you all the luck in the world, both in solving the
problem and making Billions.
Thanks! I really need it. This task is not easy.
Still, by the way you type, I would strongly suggest you read the
following (FUSSP) before attempting to "solve" the problem:
I'm looking for people who are interested in founding with me
a new venture related to preventing spam. The anti-spam
market is a big market and in 2 or 3 years it's expected to
become a market of billions. I already have an idea of solving
this problem. I believe that with the right people with
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 12:34:02AM +0300, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> That is not entirely correct, at least for now - they are vigorously
> promoting any protocols or standards they chose, but they do value
> standartization and open protocols lately - e.g. most of their .net specs
> are public.
On Monday 04 July 2005 00:34, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Last but not least, I think I can tolerate protocol "controlled" by ...
Hmmm controlled
> provided the protocol itself is public and possible to implement
> independently and that it is actually used and accepted.
.. But independ
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:01:44AM +0300, Uri Even-Chen wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >It is not easy to authenticate a person even in RL - identity theft
> >and various scams are not unheard of, and it is much harder online when
> >you can't see or touch a thing.
> >However, most of the
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
It is not easy to authenticate a person even in RL - identity theft
and various scams are not unheard of, and it is much harder online when
you can't see or touch a thing.
However, most of the cases with email for the recipient it is enough to
know that the sender of
OA>> Microsoft has announced that starting this November (11/2005) Hotmail
OA>> will implement Sender ID(*) notifications to clients - when an email
OA>> is received w/o Sender ID verification the user will be displayed
OA>> with a warning bar. I'm assuming this is kind of adoption you were
OA>> th
On Saturday, 2 בJuly 2005 22:20, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I think the problem is not technical here - I can think of a few
> methods to implement sender verification with minimal adjustment to
> existing protocols and with introducing entirely new ones. The
> problem here is that until the signi
UE>> mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (for example), which is desirable. Right
UE>> now it's technically possible for anybody to send mail from
UE>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], although in some sense it's illegal. But spammers
UE>> don't care much about laws.
I think the problem is not technical here - I can t
Nadav Har'El wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't really discuss all the details on this list (after
all, it's supposed to be a linux list),
From the number of responses, I got the impression that many people who
are subscribed to this list are interested in this subject. Indeed,
spam is a big problem f
Hmm, I see that you already answered some of my questions. Sorry for jumping
the gun.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: A new venture - preventing
spam":
> Either we will run it, or we can lease it to another company. It's like
> with registration of
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: A new venture - preventing
spam":
> Thanks for the compliments. I have been studying the subject of spam
> during the past few years, and I'm aware of other solutions. Spam
> filtering is a common solution, and we al
Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
What's to prevent a spammer to register how many addresses they want?
A mechanism will prevent it. Each new address will have to be validated
by a human being - not a computer. Optionally, we will do it in a way
that will prevent people to open hundreds of new E-mail addr
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
If it's really novel and never done before, you could patent it. If not,
everyone else will use it as soon it becomes public. If handled propery
you can get over two years of secrecy by the patent office (you file
in the US).
At this stage I decided not to patent m
Nadav Har'El wrote:
The theoretical problem with spam prevention is that it is an arms race,
the people who do it have a (large) economic motivation, and it is just an
example of the broader problem of abuse of power in our society (I see
a mailbox? I can stuff my ad there, so why not. I see a wa
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:03:08PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> Of course a *good* solution (as opposed to a crappy one) will need to be
> very sensitive to the problem of false-positives - genuine email mistakenly
> thought to be spam. When I wrote "90%" above I meant a 10% false-negative
> rate,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:17:18PM +0300, Uri Even-Chen wrote:
Someone else wrote:
> >I know you won't like my advice, and will ignore it, but it must be said:
> >
> >Your idea will not work.
>
> Thanks for your advice, but I'm curious - how do you know? I didn't
> write any details about my id
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Matan Ziv-Av wrote about "Re: A new venture - preventing
spam":
> I see (also by Nadav's reply) that I needed to elaborate a bit more.
> Your idea might make the spam situation a lot better. Your idea might
> make a lot of money (if that is your g
On 30/06/05 17:03, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> SPF is probably the best solution I know of for this problem
> which still keeps your plausible deniability (i.e., gpg is TOO strong)
That's an important and often-missed drawback of signed e-mail, but not
an inherent one. There are well-established cryptog
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote:
Hi Matan,
I know you won't like my advice, and will ignore it, but it must be said:
Your idea will not work.
Thanks for your advice, but I'm curious - how do you know? I didn't
write any details about my idea. If you don't have any details, how do
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: A new venture - preventing
spam":
> Thanks for your advice, but I'm curious - how do you know? I didn't
> write any details about my idea. If you don't have any details, how do
> you know that it won't w
Hi Matan,
I know you won't like my advice, and will ignore it, but it must be said:
Your idea will not work.
Thanks for your advice, but I'm curious - how do you know? I didn't
write any details about my idea. If you don't have any details, how do
you know that it won't work?
Best Regards,
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote:
I'm looking for people who are interested in founding with me a new
venture related to preventing spam. The anti-spam market is a big
market and in 2 or 3 years it's expected to become a market of billions.
I already have an idea of solving this problem
Dear Linux-IL subscribers,
I'm looking for people who are interested in founding with me a new
venture related to preventing spam. The anti-spam market is a big
market and in 2 or 3 years it's expected to become a market of billions.
I already have an idea of solving this problem. I believe tha
25 matches
Mail list logo
