internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:54:55 -0500
Steven Champeon wrote:
No, all those messages come from the C/R system. Or maybe I'm not
following you.
Apparently you're not. What I suggested was this. Suppose C-R systems in
general reach a 1% penetration rate. That is, 1% of all people use some
sort of challenge response system. It could be something they've
setup on their own system, it could be something their ISP has setup.
It is *by* *no* *means* one system. Then, suppose someone sends a spam
with a *real*, forged return address to 1 million people. Because we supposed
C-R systems have a 1% penetration rate that means, on average, 100,000
of those people will have some form of C-R system setup. This means
the person who's e-mail was forged will then receive aproximately
100,000 "challenges" from those people's C-R systems, not from *one*
system.
Besides, what "Bulk" actually is is a designation on the e-mail itself.
It's the "Precedence: Bulk" header on the e-mail. I maintain that this
stuff *should* be designated Bulk, because it's not regular e-mail.
It certainly should *not* be designated anything else like important, etc..
Bah. Honestly - when's the last time you saw a 'bulk' Precedence header
on actual UBE/UCE?
There you go again, trying to confuse the issue with spam. Forget about
spam. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SPAM HERE. We're talking about C-R systems.
Tanner
--
Tanner Lovelace | lovelace(at)wayfarer.org | http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
GPG Fingerprint = A66C 8660 924F 5F8C 71DA BDD0 CE09 4F8E DE76 39D4
GPG Key can be found at http://wtl.wayfarer.org/lovelace.gpg.asc
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
Create like it's 1790. -- Lawrence Lessig
-
Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
, (continued)
- 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
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, K. Jo Garner, 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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.