DoS of spam blackhole lists

[Andrew Thomas]

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