Re: Man gets nine years for spamming
- From: "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:55:09 GMT
Rich Grise wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:19:32 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > martin griffith wrote:
> >
> >> At last
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4426949.stm
> >
> > Yeah but he's appealed.
> >
> > I have no doubt however that the *only* way to get rid of spam is to
> > introduce a *mandatory* sentence of not less than 5 yrs.
> >
> > That'll stop the Bast**ds.
> >
>
> No, it won't. It's just like the war on drugs or any other war based
> on making people behave the way you want to by inflicting violence on
> them.
>
> The way to solve the spam problem is to quit buying crap from the
> spammers.
>
> Then, somebody needs to start competing with K-Mart in personal-computer
> land, and sell a preinstalled, preconfigured Linux. No, wait - that's
> virus immunity. You still need a spam filter.
>
> So somebody should publish a "list of known spammers" and some blocker
> software - in Linux it's trivial - just put a "DROP" entry in your
> iptables for that IP. If there are other people who would then want
> to use that IP number after the spammer goes out of business, tough
> toenails.
> THESE IP NUMBERS HAVE BEEN TOUCHED BY THE SPAMMERS, AND SO ARE TAINTED!
> REJECT ALL INCOMING CONNECTIONS FROM THESE IPs UNTIL THEY ARE REAUTHORIZED
> AT MY WHIM!
>
> In fact, I have a pretty good starting list:
> warning: it's 142KBytes:
> # wc LATEST_BLACKLIST
> 10099 10099 141998 LATEST_BLACKLIST
>
> 10,099 IPs that can't spam me. :-)
> http://www.neodruid.net/LATEST_BLACKLIST
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
No, the way E-mail is transmitted needs a complete overhaul. Any
server handling E-mail has to identify itself by IP address.
EXAMPLE:
Your E-mail server requires a valid "From:" account, no spoofing
allowed.
then it tries to connect to the destination server:
Hello ***.***.***.***! I am ***.***.***.*** I have mail for you.
Hello ***.***.***.***! I am ready to accept E-mail from you.
then it receives exactly one message and signs off.
If someone tries to spoof an IP address it can't get through because the
IP address would be wrong. If someone tries to hid their ISP it
wouldn't matter because you know the IP address of the source. A little
more coding would allow a single address to report all spam. It could
send out a single list to each ISP of spam attempts by user account
number and their server software could automatically block any further
e-mail till they determine if it is a real problem or sour grapes.
A simple way to create a secure e-mail network and keep existing
E-mail addresses would be to change the @ sign to @@ to indicate a
secure message. That way you could tell at a glance if the address is
secure or not while allowing time to convert to a new system.
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Man gets nine years for spamming
- From: usenetsux
- Re: Man gets nine years for spamming
- References:
- Man gets nine years for spamming
- From: martin griffith
- Re: Man gets nine years for spamming
- From: Pooh Bear
- Re: Man gets nine years for spamming
- From: Rich Grise
- Man gets nine years for spamming
- Prev by Date: Re: circuit component parasitics
- Next by Date: Re: rf design
- Previous by thread: Re: Man gets nine years for spamming
- Next by thread: Re: Man gets nine years for spamming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|