Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 15, 2004 Author Share Posted March 15, 2004 Or, you make them solve a small puzzle that takes, say, 30 seconds. And be sure that the computer can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 That's not going to deter the spammers who use other people's machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 How would they get the other people to do it for them? The other people could just let it sit. Not solve the puzzles for all those people they're sending it to. Then it won't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 You're probably being used as a node right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 Nope. My computer has a firewall, and is networked to another computer (through which it gets internet) which ALSO has a firewall. And my firewall always complains when I send something to several people, it says it might be a virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 I don't think you mean "nope", I think you mean "probably not". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 :offtopic: My computer would NOT let it through. And you still didn't say anything about post #28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 You don't think that maybe if it becomes so difficult to send spam from one's own computer, it might become easier to find ways to circumvent measures like firewalls? Also bear in mind that software that restricts your mailing ability is going to have to be voluntary, and it won't be popular. Post 28? Well, I could sit here and explain how legitimate businesses that have to send thousands of mails every hour from their mailservers are NOT going to voluntarily implement anything that increases server load and processing time, and that those same servers can be used by spammers, but I'd much rather go to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 Perhaps they could get a permit and bypass it somehow. Then when someone complains they lose the permit and they have to do the 10 sec thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Such a system would be wide open to abuse in both directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :Post 28? Well, I could sit here and explain how legitimate businesses that have to send thousands of mails every hour from their mailservers are NOT going to voluntarily implement anything that increases server load and processing time, and that those same servers can be used by spammers, but I'd much rather go to bed. To be fair, that would be why the 1 cent charge would exist, to bypass the calculation. It would work out to be cheaper than the costs expended by buisness to prevent spam. As to how it's implemented, well the spam filters would only have to look for the verification code (from the successful calculation or from a complay that paid the 1 cent) to allow through the filters. Anything without a verification code would be classed as spam. This would save most companys a lot of money. Anyone who works out a way to crack to codes could be employed to create better encripton, for more money that a spammer would earn. Microsoft is willing to work out the finer points by throwing cash and resource at it as uncontrolled spam is costing them billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 It's still a voluntary system, unless the proposal is to force business to adopt a system that will either cripple their procedures, or make them pay more for something they are already paying for. And the bottom line is that anyone can set up a mail server, anywhere, at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 This all seems to complicated, we should all learn how to comunicate telipathically About those buisnesses who send all the email, yeah those ones. I don't think they are spending more than that to counter act spam, I really don't. You know how many emails that a really big business sends everyday? I guess: a lot. Let's it up in mathmatical form. Buisness want money tax means less money buisness not like tax solution: impath abilities! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :It's still a voluntary system, unless the proposal is to force business to adopt a system that will either cripple their procedures, or make them pay more for something they are already paying for. And the bottom line is that anyone can set up a mail server, anywhere, at any time. :mutters about cost benefit analysis: Cost of email support team / reduction of spam filtering and support staff Cost of mail server / percent reduction in mail Vs Amount of emails * 1 cent. The 'independant' server can send as many mails as it likes. Without the verification of the goodwill gesture calculation etc, it would be autorejected as spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 1 cent X I kijilion emails = alot of money = not happy buiness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 1 cent X I kijilion emails = alot of money = one spammy business out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 atinymonkey said in post # :The 'independant' server can send as many mails as it likes. Without the verification of the goodwill gesture calculation etc, it would be autorejected as spam. I understand what you're talking about now. It would help if there was actually a link or verbatim quote or something. You're assuming a typical company's cost-benefit analysis would show that having an e-mail team (or, more likely, an effective and free tool like Spam Assassin, or a simple process like reverse-DNS lookups, both of which anyone in their right mind would be using on their mailservers) will work out at more than $0.01 per mail, which is a big assumption to make on behalf of planetary commerce. You're also assuming (still) that anyone would want to implement this entirely new system while there are alternatives available that cost nothing and don't require any changes to infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Dang, that is very complicated. What did I tell you, empath abilities all the way! So there's a program that can block spam? spam assasin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Unless you're running a mailserver you won't find much use for it (well, if you know the person who administers the mail servers you use you can pester them to implement it). If you're looking for something to stop spam on your webmail or domestic account, it will be easier to just adopt some simple strategies like "don't plug it into every web site you come across", "insist your friends BCC you in to group e-mails", that sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Bill's plan:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3324883.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3426367.stm details:- http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam.mspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now