Re: OT: GMail and Spam
From: Henry Spencer (henry_at_spsystems.net)
Date: 03/21/05
- Next message: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Previous message: Neil Halelamien: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- In reply to: Craig Fink: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Next in thread: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Reply: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Reply: Craig Fink: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Reply:(deleted message) gcash: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:35:41 GMT
In article <pan.2005.03.20.21.35.03.423695@GMail.Com>,
Craig Fink <WeBeGood@GMail.Com> wrote:
>...Basically, charge a penny per e-mail (write a check), if
>it's not spam don't cash the check. Still free. If it's spam, the reader
>identifies it as such, and the check is cashed, charging the spammer.
>Another concept to increase the cost of e-mail for spammer didn't involve
>money, but rather computer time...
These ideas, and a lot of other naive anti-spam concepts, neglect the fact
that a lot of spam now comes via hijacked machines. These are legitimate
machines, with legitimate network access and legitimate credentials, which
happen to be no longer under the full control of their owners. So the
spammers aren't getting the bills, and they have an essentially unlimited
supply of CPU cycles at their disposal.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net
- Next message: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Previous message: Neil Halelamien: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- In reply to: Craig Fink: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Next in thread: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Reply: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Reply: Craig Fink: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Reply:(deleted message) gcash: "Re: OT: GMail and Spam"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|