CR vs SPEWS was Recent NANAE Flood was Famous Hacker Uses ChallengeResponses

On Mon, 23 May 2005, Alan Connor

AC Said something that we can't prove is a lie. Amazing!

Both C-R and SPEWS have a similar side-effect: They place the "spam burden" on third-parties, not the recipient nor the spammer. No matter whatever merits (if any) that either of these alleged "solutions" have, burdening a third party with a spam problem other than their own (either by increase spam or improper blocking of their own legitimate mail by misclbuttifying it as spam) is morally wrong.

The paper mail system isn't that valid an analogy. With paper, the SENDER bears the SOLE COST of sending, while in the electronic world of the Internet, the recipient shares the cost.

Another truth by AC! Now, I'm impressed. He admits that the use and continued deployment of C-R systems will cause an end to ALL EMAIL. However, I'm not certain that 50% saturation is the "end." As little as 10% saturation may prove to be a sufficient annoyance to end email as a viable medium.

And all other mail for that fact. 100% spam elimination can only be guarenteed in the case of 100% email elimination. AC is well on his way to that.

SpamArrest: Now there's a product! I got about 3 spams for it before my filters caught on. Any anti-spam tool that has to be itself a topic of spam in order to distribute is questionable to begin with. Not only will I never use it, I've installed some rules in my MTA to recognize the headers it lists and kill that mail - as anyone who uses it RESPONDED to the spam about it (or at least, I SAFELY presume so) - and is therefore part of the problem.