|
Home > Archive > Unix questions > January 2005 > C-R Systems (Spam Filter)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
C-R Systems (Spam Filter)
|
|
| Alan Connor 2005-01-02, 2:47 am |
| Challenge-Response Systems
The first thing you need to understand about these systems
is that anyone who has a vested interest in keeping the
spam flowing into your mailboxes, from the spammers themselves
to those that hire them, to those who make a living via their
expertise in out-moded and ineffective spamfighting tools,
will do and say _anything_ to keep you from using one.
They have entire websites devoted to lies and distortions
about these systems.
Because they can't beat them, spammers HATE them, and we all know
that spammers have no morals whatsoever.
And that _anyone_ can put up a website that says _anything_.
Anyone can say anything on the Usenet.
An amazing number of spammers don't even consider themselves to
be spammers. It's the _other_person's UBCE (Un-solicited Bulk
Commercial Email) that's spam, not theirs. They are "legitimate
businesspersons engaged in commerce".
Right.
Are Challenge-Response systems okay to use on the Internet?
Earthlink, one of the largest ISPs in the world, seems to think
so, and offers them as a part of their standard spamfighting
package. That ought to tell you something.
I've been using one for years and know hundreds of people who use
them, and not one of us has ever received a complaint from anyone
but a spammer, and those are quite rare because spammers seldom
include a return address that is valid.
There are spammers pretending to be spamfighters post on this
group that will claim otherwise, but when you demand documented
evidence they somehow always fail to come up with it.
What they do present here is the result of them _deliberately_
soliciting Challenge-Responses from people and organizations that
use C-R systems, which proves nothing but the fact that they have
no morals and no real evidence.
What C-R Systems do is eliminate anonymous mail.
If someone wants to mail a C-R System user, they have to include
a real return address that is monitored by a live human being.
Party A mails Party B, and because they have never mailed Party B
before, and are not Passlisted, they receive a Challenge-Response
That asks them to paste a password on the Subject line and send
it back.
(A Passlist is a list of addresses from which mail is accepted
without further filtering. This is the first stage of a modern
C-R System.)
The C-R itself is a tiny note that does not include the body of
the original mail but does include the original Subject as in:
Re: Original_Subject
After the Passlist stage, incoming mail is sent to a Spamfilter
that dumps the obvious spam. This is important, because there
is no point in sending a C-R to a spammer. It's just a waste of
bandwidth and processor time.
The vast majority of spammers take great pains to include false
return addresses that are _not_ likely to belong to a real person
or organization, because this would really anger people and
inspire themto take serious steps to track down the spammer.
We've taken the mail you _know_ you want to receive off the top,
and sent most of the spam to /dev/null (the bit bucket) at this
point in the processing of the incoming mail.
The very small percentage that's left over are sent a C-R.
If the C-R System receives a bounce (No Such Address), the
address is blocklisted for a configurable length of time.
The blocklist is included the second stage (Spamfilter) of the
C-R System.
Passlist --> Spamfilter --> Challenge-Response
| | |
| | |
YES NO MAYBE
If a particular address fails to return a C-R twice, it is
blocklisted for a configurable length of time.
Blocklisted mail is sent to /dev/null.
All of the above is done by the C-R System itself, silently.
You won't even know a spammer or troll _tried_ to get their
garbage into your mailboxes.
The only personal involvement is adding or deleting addresses
from your Passlist.
Complete freedom from spam and abusive mail, because spammers and
trolls do not use their real return addresses: they don't want to
be tracked.
I wouldn't even consider using any of the pathetic and
ineffective filters that the spammers promote on this group
because they CAN beat them.
I have better things to do with my time than constantly updating
complex filter recipes and looking through hundreds of possible
spams for mail from a friend or business connection that the
filter couldn't properly classify. And I will not tolerate a
mailbox with spam in it staring me in the face because the
spammers have once again figured out how to beat the latest
filter recipes.
Spam is no longer a part of my life. And good riddance to it.
I don't need spam. I have Google. I can find better deals for
anything, from trustworthy sources, after 5 minutes on Google,
than _ever_ came to me via spam.
AC
--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Spamfilter --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
| |
|
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:15:35 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:
> Challenge-Response Systems
<large amount of absolute crap deleted>
Is this your monthly posting of this bullshit?
For those who don't know, don't be fooled by this pack of lies. It's just
another form of spam propagation.
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
| |
| Alan Connor 2005-01-02, 2:47 am |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:21:04 -0600, Dan C <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:15:35 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
><large amount of absolute crap deleted>
>
> Is this your monthly posting of this bullshit?
>
> For those who don't know, don't be fooled by this pack of lies. It's just
> another form of spam propagation.
>
> --
> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
> Linux Registered User #327951
>
This is covered in my post: Spammers and trolls HATE C-R
systems because they can't beat them.
Needless-to-say, spammers and trolls have no compunctions about
lying, as above.
I'd be receiving a bunch of abusive mails from this spammer, but
in order to get his mails to me he'd have to use his real return
address, and "Dan C" wouldn't want to do that.
Spammers and trolls are the petty criminals of the Internet,
equivalent to shoplifters in the real world: No skills, no
intelligence, no education, no morals.
Beating them is EASY.
AC
--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Spamfilter --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
| |
| Norman L. DeForest 2005-01-02, 2:47 am |
|
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Alan Connor wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:21:04 -0600, Dan C <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote:
>
> This is covered in my post: Spammers and trolls HATE C-R
> systems because they can't beat them.
And anti-spammers don't like C/R systems because they are abusive.
Using C/R to solve your spam problem is like using a snowblower to clean
your driveway of snow by blowing it all into your neighbour's driveway.
> Needless-to-say, spammers and trolls have no compunctions about
> lying, as above.
Neither does Alan Connor.
> I'd be receiving a bunch of abusive mails from this spammer, but
> in order to get his mails to me he'd have to use his real return
> address, and "Dan C" wouldn't want to do that.
Does that mean you *will* accept his messages if he uses his real return
address?
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
"O'Reilly is to a system administrator as a shoulder length latex glove
is to a veterinarian." -- Peter da Silva in the scary devil monastery
| |
| Alan Connor 2005-01-02, 2:47 am |
| On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 04:10:43 -0400, Norman L. DeForest
<af380@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
This is the same troll who called himself "Dan C"
in the other post.
Being a troll, he of course is a little short on brainpower
and thinks he is fooling us.
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
> And anti-spammers don't like C/R systems because they are
> abusive.
>
> Using C/R to solve your spam problem is like using a snowblower
> to clean your driveway of snow by blowing it all into your
> neighbour's driveway.
>
>
> Neither does Alan Connor.
>
>
> Does that mean you *will* accept his messages if he uses his
> real return address?
>
> --
> Norman De Forest
> http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
Oh wonderful! You've put a profile on a website that comes with
an ordinary ISP account that can have any name a person wants
to. An account that can easily be acquired with a cheap false ID
and paid for with anonymous money orders.
That's really impressive. (If one is an idiot.)
Here's a clue for you, criminal: No one with a functioning
brain is going to take your word over that of the large
team of email and internetworking experts at Earthlink.net
Really.
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you.
Perhaps you should consider completing elementary school?
Oh. And stay out of my mailboxes.
That's an order.
AC
--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Block-list --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
| |
|
| Alan Connor wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 04:10:43 -0400, Norman L. DeForest
> <af380@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> This is the same troll who called himself "Dan C"
> in the other post.
>
> Being a troll, he of course is a little short on brainpower
> and thinks he is fooling us.
>
You really are stupid aint ya? Anyone looking at the headers can see they
are not the same...
| |
| Larry M. Smith 2005-01-02, 7:50 am |
| Alan Connor wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 04:10:43 -0400, Norman L. DeForest
> <af380@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> This is the same troll who called himself "Dan C"
> in the other post.
>
Ummm... No it wasn't.
> Being a troll, he of course is a little short on brainpower
> and thinks he is fooling us.
>
No Alan... You're only fooling yourself.
>
(snipage)
>
>
> Oh wonderful! You've put a profile on a website that comes with
> an ordinary ISP account that can have any name a person wants
> to. An account that can easily be acquired with a cheap false ID
> and paid for with anonymous money orders.
>
Alan... Please direct me to the ISP that requires a full background
check, FBI security screening, and that it's user's know the "sooper
sekrit handshake" before signing up.
> That's really impressive. (If one is an idiot.)
>
Ah... So you're impressed then... That's nice.
> Here's a clue for you, criminal: No one with a functioning
> brain is going to take your word over that of the large
> team of email and internetworking experts at Earthlink.net
>
Wow! Alan, you're going farther and farther off the deep end. Just
what are you trying (and failing) to say here;
That anyone that disagrees with you that C/R is the end all solution to
the spam problem is a criminal?, that you would know an "internetworking
expert" if one bit you on the XXX?, or that you _actually_ have a clue
to give?!
(snip)
> Oh. And stay out of my mailboxes.
>
> That's an order.
>
That's an easy one;
You are posting with the bogus addresses of <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> and
<xxxx@yyy.zzz>... I should also note; people that think I'll jump
through a bunch of C/R crap to get an email to them, don't really want
my emails.
SgtChains
| |
| Alan Connor 2005-01-02, 7:50 am |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:32:24 -0600, Larry M. Smith <SgtChains-shreve@fahq2.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I should also note; people that think I'll jump
> through a bunch of C/R crap to get an email to them, don't
> really want my emails.
>
I sure don't.
Trolls and Spammers REALLY hate C-R systems, because the
degenerate criminal cowards won't use their real return
addresses, and thus can't get their mail through.
Isn't that just too bad?
AC
--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
| |
|
| Alan Connor wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:32:24 -0600, Larry M. Smith
> <SgtChains-shreve@fahq2.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> I sure don't.
>
> Trolls and Spammers REALLY hate C-R systems, because the
> degenerate criminal cowards won't use their real return
> addresses, and thus can't get their mail through.
>
> Isn't that just too bad?
>
>
> AC
Your email wouldnt happen to be alanconnor@earthlink.net now would it? Just
guessing here since that "tinyurl" link points to
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/elrav1/cr.html
ahh yep it is according to http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/post.html
| |
| Spin Dryer 2005-01-02, 7:50 am |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:25:16 GMT, [Alan Connor] said :-
<hogwash>
Hey, slick - nice set of newsgroups to spam at.
Also, why do you never answer the question about using a dummy
reply-to, and different "from" addresses when usenet posting ?
| |
| Kevin S. Wilson 2005-01-02, 7:50 am |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:15:35 GMT, Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>I've been using one for years and know hundreds of people who use
>them, and not one of us has ever received a complaint from anyone
>but a spammer,
You now have. CR systems are abusive, misguided, and ineffective at
stopping spam. Also, you're a putz and your mom dresses you funny.
I expect that you will now amend your spamvertizement to reflect the
fact that you have, indeed, received a complaint about your useless CR
system.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr
| |
| Kevin S. Wilson 2005-01-02, 7:50 am |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 08:28:46 GMT, Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>That's an order.
I'd like fries with it, then, Sparky.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:07:47 -0500, Viper wrote:
> Your email wouldnt happen to be alanconnor@earthlink.net now would it? Just
> guessing here since that "tinyurl" link points to
> http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/elrav1/cr.html
> ahh yep it is according to http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/post.html
Very interesting, LOL! That second link shows this freak Connor to be one
of those "survivalist" psychotics who think the world is about to end and
we need to prepare for it. Build your personal bunker now!!!
Or is it the big bad government coming to get you, Connor?
Haha, what a friggin loser this guy is.
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
| |
| Scott B. 2005-01-02, 5:50 pm |
| Spin Dryer wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:25:16 GMT, [Alan Connor] said :-
><hogwash>
> why do you never answer the question about using a dummy
> reply-to, and different "from" addresses when usenet posting ?
It seems like he should use
alanconnor@earthlink.net
| |
| Spin Dryer 2005-01-02, 5:50 pm |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 09:35:48 -0600, [Sam] said :-
>Spin Dryer writes:
>
>
>See http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml for an answer to that
>question.
>
I do know this, however, I was wondering if he's going to ignore it in
2005.
| |
|
| In article <wlNBd.15216$RH4.9140@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Alan Connor <xxxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>This is covered in my post: Spammers and trolls HATE C-R
>systems because they can't beat them.
You don't seem to understand that anti-spammers hate them too,
because they just cause more spam to be sent -- to wrong recipients
forged in the headers of spam that a C/R client receives. All C/R
does is foist the spam problem onto others.
>Needless-to-say, spammers and trolls have no compunctions about
>lying, as above.
Apparently, neither do you. I consider C/R users to be nothing more
than spammers with misguided good intentions.
-A
| |
|
|
|
|
| John Winters 2005-01-02, 5:50 pm |
| In article <71qft0dal4l87fjljet6tnr4k8jjt7hnjv@4ax.com>,
Kevin S. Wilson <rescyou@spro.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:15:35 GMT, Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>
>
>You now have. CR systems are abusive, misguided, and ineffective at
>stopping spam.
Ah, no - I'm afraid you've missed the point. Alan's definition of a spammer
is "anyone who dares to disagree with me", so by disagreeing with him you
automatically become a spammer and thus he retains his 100% record on
lack of complaints.
>Also, you're a putz and your mom dresses you funny.
Probably true.
Cheers,
John
--
Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England
i = (free(NULL), i++);
| |
|
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:21:53 -0600, Sam wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Oh, that's not all.
> Beavis claims to be a personal friend of Bigfoot: http://tinyurl.com/6dkxn
> He also claims to have been kidnapped and raped by Xena, the Warrior
> Princess, I kid you not: http://tinyurl.com/4otkh
> He also believes that I am the author of the MSBlast virus, and that I wrote
> it specifically to target and torment his poor soul: http://tinyurl.com/ifrt
> No, here's Beavis's worst arch-nemesis:
> http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#Sam
OMG, this freako is one seriously deluded weirdo. I just didn't know the
extent of it.
Hey Connor, you're a XXXXing ignorant wacko! STFU and go reinforce your
bunker, and build a new tinfoil beanie! LOL, you are a true moron, and
have no credibility.
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
| |
|
| >
> Here's a clue for you, criminal: No one with a functioning
> brain is going to take your word over that of the large
> team of email and internetworking experts at Earthlink.net
>
So, you spew forth that one of the top spammers on the internet .......
Earthlink is an "expert"? My brother-in-law happens to run the network
for Earthlink in their Pasadena office and I am personally quite aware
of their crappy service, their "content" being nothing more than
advertising for whatever product they want a person to purchase, and
their spamming their own customers constantly. No one with a single
functioning independent brain cell would take anything coming from the
"experts" at Earthlink as gospel at all.
As to C-R Systems, maybe you should find some other name since the folks
at http://www.crsystems.com/ may get a little pissed at you using their
name. Your filter does a simple job and is nothing new at all, it is
fairly effective however.
> Really.
>
> I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you.
>
> Perhaps you should consider completing elementary school?
>
> Oh. And stay out of my mailboxes.
>
> That's an order.
>
>
> AC
>
| |
|
| Alan Connor wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:32:24 -0600, Larry M. Smith <SgtChains-shreve@fahq2.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> I sure don't.
>
> Trolls and Spammers REALLY hate C-R systems, because the
> degenerate criminal cowards won't use their real return
> addresses, and thus can't get their mail through.
>
> Isn't that just too bad?
>
>
> AC
>
>
http://tinyurl.com/4dkh4
| |
| Ralf Döblitz 2005-01-02, 5:50 pm |
| In comp.mail.sendmail Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
[...]
> Are Challenge-Response systems okay to use on the Internet?
Only if used appropriately. Using them to check unknown senders may be
acceptable.
But many people use C/R systemes even when requesting automated mail
responses (e.g. from online ordering sytems) or when initating the mail
contact themselves. I usually drop those mails in the bitbucket and
refrain from further communication with this kind of people. If they
will not make make the effort to whitelist the systems/users they
contact, I will not do that either.
Ralf (F'Up2 reduced to comp.mail.sendmail as I do not read the other groups)
--
Ralf Döblitz * Schapenstraße 6 * 38104 Braunschweig * Germany
Phone: +49-531-2361223 Fax: +49-531-2361224 mailto:doeblitz@doeblitz.net
Homepage: http://www.escape.de/users/selene/
Mit UTF-8 kann man gleichzeitig äöüßÄÖÜæœłø¼½¾¤¹²³¢â‚
¬Â£Â¥Â¶Â§Â¬Ã·Ã—±©®™¡¿ verwenden.
| |
| Todd Dugdale 2005-01-02, 5:50 pm |
| Alan Connor wrote:
> Challenge-Response Systems
> I've been using one for years and know hundreds of people who use
> them, and not one of us has ever received a complaint from anyone
> but a spammer, and those are quite rare because spammers seldom
> include a return address that is valid.
>
hmmm. So who do you imagine is getting all of the challenges to all of
the spam you aren't seeing, if as you say "spammers seldom include a
return address that is valid"? You are simply shoving all of your spam
into the inbox of whatever innocent party the spammer has chosen to
forge the "From:" or "Return-path:" line to.
This is the primary objection to C/R systems. It has nothing to do
with some kind of veiled "pro-spammer" agenda. You are merely throwing
your garbage into your neighbour's yard. That would "work" in dealing
with your garbage, too, wouldn't it? This is the same way that C/R
"works". Sure, your neighbours wouldn't like it, but you can dismiss
them as "trolls" and "pro-garbage", can't you?
--
Todd Dugdale
Plymouth, MN
sirius@tiny.net
http://theskytonight.com/~sirius
| |
| Amanda 'Six-Chins' Connor 2005-01-02, 8:51 pm |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:15:35 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:
> Challenge-Response Systems
>
Aw crap, here we go again with this mindless spamming twaddle.
Beavis, can you not read?
http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml
A.
--
"Come, Pinky, or I shall have to hurt you."
| |
| Enkidu 2005-01-02, 8:51 pm |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 10:13:24 GMT, Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:32:24 -0600, Larry M. Smith <SgtChains-shreve@fahq2.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>I sure don't.
>
>Trolls and Spammers REALLY hate C-R systems, because the
>degenerate criminal cowards won't use their real return
>addresses, and thus can't get their mail through.
>
>Isn't that just too bad?
>
SPAMmers do use valid email addresses. I know this because I received
in excess of 14,000 invalid bounce messages when some SPAMming sod
used the email address as sender address. Chanllenge Response just
adds the mess by creating its own series of messages. If every one of
those systems bouncing messages had C/R I'd have received exactly the
same number of dud emails!
In addition, C/R exposes your email address as a valid one at SMTP
time, and it gets added to the SPAMmers database. Using C/R exposes
you to more emails from SPAMmers.
Another reason for not using C/R is that it confuses people into
thinking that their message has failed due to problems at YOUR end.
When I've used C/R system, I've had several cases where people have
said "I couldn't send you email" because they have received a
challenge and didn't know how to react to it.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:
http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
| |
|
|
| Enkidu 2005-01-03, 2:48 am |
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:18:08 -0600, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote:
>Enkidu writes:
>
>
>B…b…but according to Beavis, spammers don't do that. Beavis' own canned
>drivel states:
>
># The vast majority of spammers take great pains to include false
># return addresses that are _not_ likely to belong to a real person
># or organization, because this would really anger people and
># inspire themto take serious steps to track down the spammer.
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group...92?dmode=source
>
Heh!
Cliff
--
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:
http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
| |
| Norman L. DeForest 2005-01-03, 2:48 am |
|
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Sam wrote:
> Enkidu writes:
[snip]
>
> B…b…but according to Beavis, spammers don't do that. Beavis' own canned
> drivel states:
>
> # The vast majority of spammers take great pains to include false
> # return addresses that are _not_ likely to belong to a real person
> # or organization, because this would really anger people and
> # inspire themto take serious steps to track down the spammer.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...92?dmode=source
Does that mean that the five bounces that landed in my inbox so far this
year, that had my ISP's support and abuse addresses forged as the envelope
senders, were just imaginary?
(Yes, I am the list-owner for the user support list here and I also
am one of the ones reading messages to abuse (in an advisory status).)
And, yes, two of the five bounced spams had my ISP's *abuse* address
forged.
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
"O'Reilly is to a system administrator as a shoulder length latex glove
is to a veterinarian." -- Peter da Silva in the scary devil monastery
| |
| Peter Köhlmann 2005-01-03, 7:50 am |
| begin Alan Connor wrote:
< snip typical Alan Connor droppings >
Read here about some background to AC
http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
| |
| NormanM 2005-01-03, 5:51 pm |
| In article <bkMBd.15181$RH4.8690@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Alan
Connor says...
> The first thing you need to understand about these systems
> is that anyone who has a vested interest in keeping the
> spam flowing into your mailboxes, from the spammers themselves
> to those that hire them, to those who make a living via their
> expertise in out-moded and ineffective spamfighting tools,
> will do and say _anything_ to keep you from using one.
Eh? What spammer cares about C-R? Most spammers are paid to deliver email.
As long as their spamware tells them that the receiving MX said, "220 Mail
accepted", then they are happy. C-R systems, by their very nature, must send
a "220 Mail accepted".
I see lots of spammers XXXXX, whine, and moan about DNSBLs; but those cause
an MX to send a "553 Mail refused". I have yet to see a spammer XXXXX,
whine, or moan about C-R systems.
If you put a DNSBL in front of your C-R system, then why bother with sending
a challenge?
--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
| |
| Seth Breidbart 2005-01-05, 5:56 pm |
| In article <bkMBd.15181$RH4.8690@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Alan Connor <xxxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>Challenge-Response Systems
>
>The first thing you need to understand about these systems
>is that
if the message is forged, the challenge is spam.
Those who emit spam are spammers.
If the pre-filtering system is perfect, there's no need for
challenges.
If it isn't, it drops real email or causes spam to be emitted.
Now, rejecting suspected spam, with a bypass method in the rejection
notice, is fine; but that has to be done by the MTA, not a user's
delivery agent.
Seth
| |
|
| In article <crhqe3$7gd$1@panix5.panix.com>,
Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <bkMBd.15181$RH4.8690@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>Alan Connor <xxxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>if the message is forged, the challenge is spam.
>
>Those who emit spam are spammers.
>
>If the pre-filtering system is perfect, there's no need for
>challenges.
>
>If it isn't, it drops real email or causes spam to be emitted.
>
>Now, rejecting suspected spam, with a bypass method in the rejection
>notice, is fine; but that has to be done by the MTA, not a user's
>delivery agent.
>
>Seth
....and that's the best summing-up of the stupidity of C-R that I've
ever read.
It's a pitty AC won't pay attention.
-A
| |
| Peter Köhlmann 2005-01-05, 5:56 pm |
| begin Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <bkMBd.15181$RH4.8690@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Alan Connor <xxxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
> if the message is forged, the challenge is spam.
>
> Those who emit spam are spammers.
>
> If the pre-filtering system is perfect, there's no need for
> challenges.
>
> If it isn't, it drops real email or causes spam to be emitted.
>
> Now, rejecting suspected spam, with a bypass method in the rejection
> notice, is fine; but that has to be done by the MTA, not a user's
> delivery agent.
>
> Seth
Oh oh, now Alan will call you a spammer
Additionally, you will be killfiled for 90 days. After all, you had the
nerve to disagree with his views. Also, he will claim that he did not read
past your first line of reply, since his psychic newsreader (the one
feeding him posts line by line) has indicated to him that you were about to
destroy his reasoning
--
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
| |
| NetworkElf 2005-01-06, 5:56 pm |
| On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:51:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
>
> Additionally, you will be killfiled for 90 days. After all, you had the
90 seconds, I believe is the actual amount of time. No matter how many times
AC claims not to have read a message to which he is replying, he's simply
unable to let it go. Only Xena knows for sure though...
--
________________________________________
_
NetworkElf: Super Genius, Computer Guy, Harley Owner!
Blindly serving the covert purposes of the
criminal-minded maniac behind Spews since 2003.
| |
|
| Alan Connor wrote:
> Challenge-Response Systems
> I don't need spam. I have Google. I can find better deals for
> anything, from trustworthy sources, after 5 minutes on Google,
> than _ever_ came to me via spam.
Clearly your New Years Resolution to stop kooking out did not last long.
Skua
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo
(1863 - 1941)
|
|
|
|
|