Re: anti-spam filtering on this list? challenge responses?

I agree. C/R system should *NOT* be used. The URLs you gave provide perfect 
examples of why.
 For those unfortunate enough to have a C/R system thrust upon them by an 
organization, I feel very sorry for them & agree that something should be 
done with the system to prevent it from willy-nilly responding to each & 
every person on a mailing list.
 On 7/21/05, Haudy Kazemi <[email protected]> wrote: 
> 
> At 02:30 PM 7/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >Why don't you just delete it? Has the U of Minnesota thought of that one?
> >Instead you make more email about the email you don't like. Chances are 
> you
> >will get another autoreply by complaining.
> >Rather then have him change something that he obviously needs why don't 
> you
> >do that simple 1-click motion and delete it.
> >Jason
> 
> This has nothing do with with the U of MN and my comments in regards to 
> the
> UMN antispam system were solely to present a tangential alternative method
> of handling spam filtering that does not require challenge-response. Those
> comments were separate from the original issue of autoresponders replying
> to list-generated email. (And yes I know I can delete such autoresponder
> messages. It doesn't make poorly designed autoresponders any less
> unwanted...kinda like spam in first place.)
> 
> Here are some 3rd party comments on the issue of autoresponders for spam
> filtering:
> 
> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html
> 
> http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:www.iki.fi/era/mail/autoresponder-faq.h
> tml+autoresponders+mailing+lists&hl=en
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#CR
> 
> ---copy/paste---
> Challenge/response spam filtering
> Description: This "selfish" method of spam filtering replies to all
> email with a "challenge" - a message only a living person can
> (theoretically) respond to. There are several problems with this method
> which have been well known for many years.
> 
> 1. Does not scale: If everyone used this method, nobody would ever
> get any mail.
> 2. Annoying: Many users refuse to reply to the challenge emails,
> don't know what they are or don't trust them.
> 3. Ineffective: Because of confusion about these emails, many of
> them are confirmed by people who did not trigger them. This results in the
> original malicious email being delivered.
> 4. Selfish: This is the problem we are mainly concerned with. By
> using challenge/response filtering, you are asking innumerable third
> parties to receive your challenge emails just so that a relatively few
> legitimate ones get through to the intended recipient.
> 
> SpamCop abandoned this method of filtering after a short test period in
> 2001. Another site discussing the problems with challenge/response:
> Challenge-Response Anti-Spam Systems Considered Harmful
> 
> Solution: Do not use challenge/response filtering. Although it may stop
> most unwanted email for the person shielded by it, it generates more
> unwanted email for others.
> 
> Since more and more sites will rightly block these challenge emails,
> you can never be sure they will reach their target even when they are not
> misdirected themselves. So these systems will lose legitimate mail in an
> attempt to stop unwanted mail.
> ---end of copy/paste---
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/dev