Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   This is ancient

   

   Nonesuch, Oct 8th, 2004 @ 10:35pm

   
   

   D. J. Bernstein proposed the same basic concept as Internet Mail 2000, about three years ago.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Spam - a much easier solution

   

   VonSkippy, Oct 9th, 2004 @ 9:01pm

   
   

   I have one email account. I get ZERO spam. How you ask? My server rejects ALL senders not on my "white list". Checking the senders IP, address spoofing doesn't get thru. When I deal with vendors/companies/governments I take the few minutes to enter them into the white list. It's been over a year and I've recv'd a total of 4 (yes 4) unwanted emails (then refined my reverse IP check to block that loophole). Very very few email users need to have a open email account, and the few that do should go to a web form then whitelist method. SPAM would be stopped in a few months if more people would adopt this method. Trust me, you won't miss it. For the naysayers who say "what if I miss some important email message" - I say, if it's that important there's the phone, cell phone, snail mail, faxes, personal visits, etc.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Spam - a much easier solution

   

   Nonesuch, Oct 10th, 2004 @ 12:26am

   
   

   VonSkippy writes:

   My server rejects ALL senders not on my "white list". Checking the senders IP, address spoofing doesn't get thru. When I deal with vendors/companies/governments I take the few minutes to enter them into the white list. It's been over a year and I've recv'd a total of 4 (yes 4) unwanted emails (then refined my reverse IP check to block that loophole). Very very few email users need to have a open email account, and the few that do should go to a web form then whitelist method

   That's fine for you, what about for doing business?

   Individuals and companies whose customers contact them via email need to accept email from previously unknown sources -- if you want to stay in business, you don't force new customers to jump through hoops in order to contact you.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Spam - a much easier solution

   

   BtG, Oct 10th, 2004 @ 8:20am

   
   

   Much as it may suck, doing all business via first contact web forms has done wonders. Basically setup everything so that no email addresses are present on a web site, and everything is handled through a web form, so that even a view source does not reveal the destination email address.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Spam - a much easier solution

   

   VonSkippy, Oct 10th, 2004 @ 11:56am

   
   

   I do run a business, and as I stated in my post, for blind first contacts, I have a web form, which then feeds my white list if the contact is legit. Customers/Clients are forced to jump thru all types of hoops, all the time, in normal business, so making them use a "first contact" method that prevents SPAM is no big deal. Trust me, if your potential client whines at using a SPAM prevention tool (and has to use said tool only one time) they aren't worth having as a customer.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   It might work, but...

   

   Chris Reuter, Oct 11th, 2004 @ 12:52pm

   
   

   I have my doubts about this approach. The problem is that the sender still has to send out a notifications to the recipient and while this uses a lot less bandwidth than sending the whole message, it doesn't do anything about the problem of finding the one legitimate message in your spam-filled inbox.

   Currently, I use bogofilter and it does an okay job. But to use it on a sender-stores system, I'd first have to download every notification anyway and there goes the bandwidth savings. Also, it means the sender knows I downloaded his message. Combine that with the lower cost of sending notifications and dictionary attacks become a lot more useful to spammers.

   Granted, having the message reside on a fixed server might make it possible to shut down a spam before it makes any money. However, I can think of several dodges around that. You could use hacked PCs on broadband networks or servers in countries that are hard to reach legally or socially. You could claim that yes, the spam message was yours but you only sent notifications to a couple of thousand people on your mailing list and the rest are the result of some rogue spammer.

   Also, it would require throwing away the entire existing e-mail infrastructure and replacing it with this. So no, I don't think it'll happen

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 6:27pm

   
   

   www

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 6:28pm

   
   

   birm gang

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment