internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:58:50 -0500
on Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:49:31AM -0500, Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> >
> >No, they're not. They're a single response to a single message, maybe
> >repeated twice, but that's hardly "bulk".
> >
> >Come on, we have a hard enough time trying to fight the real spammers,
> >folks listed on ROSKO, without such silly confusions of the issue.
>
> Did you even read the web page? Point #6 - potential "joe-job" denial
> of service. Say, for instance, C-R gets a penetration rate of 1%.
> Someone then sends a spam with a valid e-mail address to a million
> addresses. The return e-mail address will then end up receiving
> 100,000 C-R challenges. Tell me that's not bulk! If that's not bulk,
> then I don't know what is.
No, that's not bulk - that's abuse. Like I said, don't confuse the
issue. 'Bulk' means that the message was sent to many people / accounts
/ addresses. That's all that it means in the context of spam. If I send
you five thousand copies of the same message, but don't send it to anyone
else, that's abuse - that's not bulk mail.
If I can block the sender and the entire problem goes away, it's not UBE.
Don't get me wrong - there's enough to complain about WRT C/R - but to
confuse it with spam doesn't help anybody.
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier
-
RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
, (continued)
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Shea Tisdale, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/19/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Shea Tisdale, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, James Manning, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/19/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Michael D. Thomas, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- C/R system math - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Jeremy Portzer, 11/20/2003
- Re: C/R system math - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: C/R system math [kook!] - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Sil Greene, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Michael D. Thomas, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Ian Meyer, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Sil Greene, 11/20/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.