Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation.

From: Alan Connor (alanconnor_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 08/02/03

  • Next message: David Fokkema: "Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation."
    Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 07:36:35 -0700
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
    
    

    > From srivasta@debian.org Sat Aug 2 06:52:59 2003
    >
    >
    > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:17:28 +0100, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> said:
    >
    > > I do not dispute that they eliminate spam, at least with the current
    > > generation of spamming technology. I merely claim that they are far
    > > from invulnerable, in particular to false positives. Some people
    > > care about this, some don't, and that's fine. However, *please*
    > > accept the existence of the other camp!
    >
    > I think we should get a few things clear.
    >
    > Any mechanism that eliminates spam is likely to have false
    > positives and false negatives; Alan has been trying to say that his
    > system reduces false negatives to nothing; I actully contest this
    > statement in the face of things like klez and increasingly
    > sophisticated spoofing of real email addresses by spammers.
    >
    > This is done, as you rightly state, at the expense of a far
    > higher false positive rate; which some people (including me) find
    > unacceptable.
    >
    >

    Depends on what you call "false positives." I don't accept anonymous email.
    Period.

    If anyone wants me to read their mail, then they are going to have to prove
    to me that the address they are using is their actual machine. (Or *I* have
    established this in advance.)

    Given the current obsession with matters of security, and the fact that it
    IS, as you state above, so easy to falsify *some* headers, I think that anyone
    who objects to taking a moment to offer some reasonable level of proof of their
    identity is pretty silly.

    The same people who will log in over and over again to a website, sometimes
    several times a day, for years on end, are freaking out over having to resend
    1 email, one time, to establish a communications link with someone.

    Many of them won't accept a phone call if the caller has blocked their
    number.......

    The fact is, I believe, that most of them have commercial dreams and want
    people to block everyone's spam but THEIRS.

    And/or, they want to just fire off messages, often abusive, to anyone they
    feel like, invading and violating that person's privacy.

    Many, obviously, actually like spam, and want to receive SOME of it, but
    not the rest. Experience has shown that this is impossible.

    So they don't like C-R systems because they WORK, not because they don't.

    I downloaded my mail an hour ago, and 14 messages went to /dev/null. I didn't
    bother to check the logs, but if I did, I would find that about half had
    headers so malformed that no auto-response was sent. The balance received
    a reply IF they used their real email address.

    Those that did use their real address and decide that talking to me is not
    worth re-sending 1 mail, won't do it, and that's fine. I don't want people like
    that to have access to my mail box.

    Or, they were using a false address and didn't receive the reply...

    A well-designed C-R program, like mine, works PERFECTLY. No commercials and
    no riff-raff have access to my mailbox, which is how I want it.

    The time I devote to tweaking my filters involves finding and deciding who
    I WANT to receive mail from, not the endless list of those that I don't want
    to hear from.

    I have just persuaded a large non-profit organization to install the simple
    server-side software that will allow them to transparently deal with people
    using C-R programs.

    It just scans for the X-CR: header and includes the string/password there in
    any replies on the X-Subject: line. Childsplay.

    The amount of malicious disinformation and assertions by people who obviously
    know nothing about C-R system, being posted on this thread boggles the mind.

    I don't get any spam or harrasing emails.

    Why do YOU?

    Alan

    -- 
          For Linux/Bash users: Eliminate spam with the Mailbox-Sentry-Program. 
             See: http://tinyurl.com/inpd  for the scripts and docs.
         
    -- 
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    

  • Next message: David Fokkema: "Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Would you like Help in Here? How to make sure you get it!
      ... disagrees with the plea for using real email addresses. ... good/better spam filter if they have problems with that. ... None of us work for Microsoft. ... > Most folks by now have their inboxes fairly effectively anti-spammed one way ...
      (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
    • Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation.
      ... > people to block everyone's spam but THEIRS. ... > So they don't like C-R systems because they WORK, ... > a reply IF they used their real email address. ... > no riff-raff have access to my mailbox, which is how I want it. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: im scared
      ... >>Stop ticking folks off for one, another install and keep ... >>configure a good firewall. ... > you send me spam meat im reporting you! ... never said I was going to spam you, I said that you used your real email ...
      (microsoft.public.security)
    • Re: Javascript and Vista
      ... my real name and real email address on a public searchable forum for ... spam, don't we all, and see no reason to add to it. ... domain owners may not want to handle your ... Mail no News. ...
      (comp.lang.javascript)
    • Re: Spam-trapping (was Re: Suitable insect repellant to keep the infamous scottish midges at bay
      ... I have used my real email address on all my Usenet ... spamassassin copes perfectly well with the spam I do get. ... My hosting provider does provide some basic spam filtering (although ...
      (uk.rec.cycling)