Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page