John: ...
a) admit that your stupid, self-appointed-netcop blacklists and self-righteous spam projects are inherently flawed, and ... Please spend your sophomore year working on something besides "self-appointed-spam-netcop-site-of-the-week". ... ..., and don't require some asshole swooping in to save us with his miraculous spews database. ...
I fail to see how the above is at all necessary in responding to the statement. Either a) an explanation, or b) a link to an explanation as to why you have these opinions would have been far more useful than the above troll.
b) realize that the distributed method you suggest already exists - it is called procmail(*). Procmail serves no purpose by itself. It requires no small amount of effort on the part of the administrator to utilise for any type of systems implmentation, and thus administrators with limited time (common in smaller companies) will rather rely on (flawed) projects than self-initiated implementations.
(*) or you could setup a dummy email account on all web-published documents, and delete any email that arrives in both mailboxes, or you could implement a challenge/response mechanism for all new senders. All three mechanisms mentioned are distributed, independent
The above is useful information. Specifically, the recognition of duplicate mail receipts is a concept that is new to me, though that would require that both email addresses would receive an equal amount of 'publicity' on newsgroups, mailing lists, etc in order that they are both acquired by a potential spammer. The latter idea I have heard before. If you have a preferred implementation however, which one it is and why is information that I would find useful. A. -- Andrew G. Thomas Hobbs & Associates Chartered Accountants (SA) (o) +27-(0)21-683-0500 (f) +27-(0)21-683-0577 (m) +27-(0)83-318-4070