[ale] OT: the Penny Black anti-spam proposal

[ChangingLINKS.com]

Re: [ale] OT: the Penny Black anti-spam proposal  (ChangingLINKS.com,  Sat Dec 
27 20:38:29 2003)

> > We can simply add a list that allows
> > emails to come from specified email addresses without the
> > verification. This way, the list does not have to verify. In the
> > current system the receiver has at least some of this functionality
> > already.
> 
> Totally useless.  I can send you email with any email address as the 
> sender.  spoofing email addresses is easier than spoofing ips.

I don't think you understand how the spamarrest system works.
Which email addresses do I have in my "I accept without verification" list 
now? Yes. I do have one. 
Are you saying that a spammer will know WHAT my email address is AND one of 
the few (if any) email addresses that I will accept emails from without 
verification? Would a spammer know my email address and PIN number that tells 
my account to receive without verification?
The system I use is very similar. My server is set to dump any email that is 
not to certain email addresses. Though I am sent several hundred spams a day, 
I get one or so a day in my inbox. Coincidently, it was:
 
"Email Marketing
Email more than 2,500,000+ TARGETED prospects EVERYDAY! That's over 75,000,000
+ prospects per month (and growing!). Our Optin email safelists are 100% 
Optin and 100% legal to use. Your ad will reach only those prospects who have 
requested to be included in Optin safelists for people interested in new 
business opportunities, products and services." 
Anyone interested? I can forward it. :)

> Knowledge is required, and you 
> don't have it if you think you can control spam based on an email address.

I never said that. 
I think you misunderstood the idea behind the feature that I demonstrated 
would overcome the mailinglist/spamarrest verification problem.

> A one time verification is useless.  You need authentication per email.
I don't think you understand how the spamarrest system works. Once a sender 
has verified the email it gets dropped into the receiver's email box. At that 
point, the receiver can ban sender anyway at anytime. Further, additional 
criteria (like spamassasin) can be (and are) used client side.

> >> AND, like most client-side "hacks"/anti-spam solutions, the
> >> spammers are even now finding a way to work around it.
> > 
> > Yes, the spammers (and porn marketers) seem to be more intelligent
> > than those defending against it.
> No, the spammers choose to break the law, whereas those defending 
> against it don't.

Choose one:
a. Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. 
b. If you outlaw sending email, only outlaws will send email.
c. Some spam defenders DO break the law.
d. Do you really think the limitation is the law?

OK. I am beating a dead horse here. 
My recommendation is try spamarrest on an account for 30 days (it's free) to 
get a better understanding of how it works. Then, report back on how much 
spam you received to that account. :) I am sure there are others out there, I 
have verified on at least 5. 
Also, understand that I am proposing a system that is FREE, client-side, has a 
couple features added (or one to allow for mailing lists),  and can be 
implemented for millions of email addresses by Valentine's Day.

-- 
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew Brown
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com