nanog mailing list archives
Re: MS's new antispam idea
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:28:38 -0800
It's an interesting concept... Now spammers will use a noticeable portion of the CPU on the boxes they've hijacked, instead of the currently virtuallyunnoticable portion of the resources, so, in that sense, it might help identify
the owned boxes to their true owners. However, I think Micr0$0ft could do much more to reduce SPAM if they simply made their OS less 0wn-able. Owen--On Friday, December 26, 2003 2:23 PM +0000 "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3324883.stm Ok so in summary you have to use a bit of CPU to solve a puzzle before it lets you send email. So either this doesn't work because spammers dont actually use their own PCs to send email or we are talking about a whole new mail protocol, either way I'm thinking this isnt going to work and its yet another publicity stunt. Steve
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- MS's new antispam idea Stephen J. Wilcox (Dec 26)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Jeff Shultz (Dec 26)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Steven M. Bellovin (Dec 26)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Doug Luce (Dec 26)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Steven M. Bellovin (Dec 26)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Doug Luce (Dec 26)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Richard A Steenbergen (Dec 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: MS's new antispam idea Michel Py (Dec 26)
- RE: MS's new antispam idea David Schwartz (Dec 26)
- RE: MS's new antispam idea Michel Py (Dec 27)
- Re: MS's new antispam idea Jeff Shultz (Dec 26)