Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime
Mark Rasch, 2004-12-27

Comments Mode:
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-28
Anonymous (1 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-28
Anonymous (2 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-28
Repoman (4 replies)
From one extreme to the next 2004-12-28
Anonymous
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-30
Anonymous (1 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-28
Mark Bryant (2 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Spam: Punishment 2004-12-29
Anonymous
Exactly 2004-12-29
Aenox (2 replies)
Exactly 2005-01-01
Anonymous (2 replies)
You obviously do not have a technical background, this message is absurd. First, spammers (And as a hosting company I can vouch for this with real log files) often use programs that send spam to servers without knowing the names of people on that server, that is, without their email addresses, they use programs that use common names, common addresses. I reject a ton of mail that simply cannot be delivered, so this aproach will not work.

Also, your looking at the cost of this problem from the stand point of your email inbox, what about the loss to me, in bandwidth usage that is wasted from huge quantities of messages that I reject because the recipients just done exist?

So I respectfully disagree with you post, this is not an "acceptable" response.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/287/29751#29751
Exactly 2005-01-05
Anonymous
Exactly 2005-01-05
Aenox
Exactly 2005-01-02
cj (1 replies)
Exactly 2005-01-05
Aenox
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2004-12-31
fianna (1 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime 2005-01-03
Mark Ferguson
But if they paid taxes... 2005-01-03
Anonymous







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus