From: Dave Sill (extropians@dave.sill.org)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 15:35:22 MDT
"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
>
> The problem with this is that it still allows the "spam" to be accepted
> from the sender.
True. Dan Bernstein's IM2000 would fix, though, by having senders
store messages locally until recipients accept them. See:
> Much better would be to make the slugs pay for their
> crime in real time. This requires the installation of a mail recepient
> (sendmail, etc.) that recognizes spam line-by-line as it is received,
> rejects it, does a traceback to the ISP for said sender and sends a
> note to their abuse managers. A limited DoS attack on the sender's
> IP address probably wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Recognizing spam is practically impossible. Any heuristic that's
easily implemented is also easily worked-around by spammers once
people start using it.
Tracing spam back to the originating ISP is tricky. Most spammers use
an open relay, so DoS'ing them could get you trouble.
> In the world I envision you have to say "May I?"!
That's IM2000. In the meantime, try TMDA.
-Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:23 MST