Re: CNN.com on Remailers
At 02:42 PM 12/18/01 -0800, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
Can't spam be repelled by not forwarding email not encrypted to the remailer's key?
Who is to say that spammers won't use remailer clients that automatically encrypt to the remailers' keys?
Yes they could.
Using remailer clients should be *easy*. Saying "this is too hard for the average spammer to figure out" isn't acceptable.
The most commonly held point of view that I've perceived on this list is that spammers are too lazy/stupid to do this -or even add a simple string token to a line. That may of course be wrong or in some cases any unexploited weakness is unacceptable. ..... As far as "flood" attacks on *any* node goes, you have to throttle at the routers. I think the ping attacks on yahoo of yesteryear showed this. Cheers
David Honig wrote:
At 02:42 PM 12/18/01 -0800, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
Can't spam be repelled by not forwarding email not encrypted to the remailer's key?
Who is to say that spammers won't use remailer clients that automatically encrypt to the remailers' keys?
Yes they could.
Using remailer clients should be *easy*. Saying "this is too hard for the average spammer to figure out" isn't acceptable.
The most commonly held point of view that I've perceived on this list is that spammers are too lazy/stupid to do this -or even add a simple string token to a line.
To maximize their efficiency *, spammers want to send the same message to everyone on a large list of addresses, with a small amount of effort and attention on their part. Any special effort necessary to get the spam to a given address is not a worthwhile ROI. (And it's probably not worth the effort to remove the address from the list, either.) This is also the point behind the hashcash proposal: the sender's machine has to burn a certain number of cycles to make a hash which will convince the recipient to accept each message. ** * Efficiency is the useful output divided by the effort input. "Efficiency" for a useless endeavor such as spamming is problematical. ** Eric, if you're reading this, I really am putting some work in on this, just not at a high enough rate to produce any output. Efficiency of 0. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel
participants (2)
-
David Honig -
Steven Furlong