[ale] (no subject) SPAM talk...

[Bjorn Dittmer-Roche]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, George Carless wrote:

> Once again, Drew, you're weighing in with a rather inflammatory post that betrays something of a lack of understanding of
> the problem at hand.  So I'll refer you to the always-useful spamsolutions.txt: http://www.craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
>
> And most of the criticism of Microsoft has little to do with spam (unless as applied to issues with open relays, etc.), and
> more to do with things like the execution of arbitrary application code received in emails, etc.  Comparing the two is
> absolutely comparing apples and oranges.
>
> And I'm not sure what you mean by "I, for one, don't allow harvesting at my domain".. I couldn't really find any pages on your
> site which were of the kind to contain data that could be harvested (which may be because it's a somewhat
> difficult-to-navigate site).  But certainly many of the sites that you link to *are* ripe for harvesting for those with the
> will.
>
> And the mirror that you posted seems to only do simple stuff like "username at wherever.com", which I think is no deterrent
> whatsoever to spam harvesters.
>
> Security through obfuscation by the means that you describe is *very little security*, and indeed is often potentially wore
> than "no security".  The reasons for this have been explained to you many times on the list, but you keep bringing up this
> same topic.  Which suggests that you're unwilling to learn, which is frankly rather annoying.  Do just a *little* research and
> you'll soon find for yourself that the kinds of steps you propose are at best too problematic, introducing more issues than
> they solve, and at worst entirely ineffective.  But I am sure that you'll respond in your typical "abused misunderstood martyr
> who's just acting in the common good" style...
>
> Cheers,
> --George

Ouch! Well drew does have a point about obfuscation and it's backed up by
actual RESEARCH. I find it frustrating to read a thread like this where
noone has actually backed up their claims with facts. Of course this kind
of research becomes outdated fast, so maybe that's why noone bothered, but
FWIW here's one very good citation with solid research:

http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml


	bjorn