Re: Challenges from challenge-response systems qualify as unsolicited

From: Norman L. DeForest <af380_at_chebucto.ns.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:40:08 -0300

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Alan Connor wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:09:55 -0600 (MDT), Vernon Schryver <vjs_at_[snip]> wrote:

                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[snip]
> > My old policy was to never respond to challenges. Based on suggestions
> > in NANAE, I now respond to all challenges that get past my spam defenses.
> > Since changing my policy, I've responded to more challenges of likely
> > spam forged in my name than legitimate mail.
>
> You are lying.
>
> >The only legitimate
> > challenge I've recently seen was apparently manually overridden by the
> > other party before I could respond to the challenge. The only reason
> > I know it was legitimate is that my mailbox contained first the challenge
> > from an unfamiliar address and then a response from the same address
> > to a message of mine.
> >
>
> Liar.
>
> > All but the dimest lusers soon figure out the need to manually whitelist
> > quarantined legitimate mail awaiting challenge responses, which makes
> > their C/R systems nothing more than manual whitelist systems.
> >
>
> I don't get any spam and I get all the mail I want to get.
>
> I never have to mess with the program.
>
> If you call that being a "luser", then you are an imbecile as well
> as being a liar.
>
> And you most certainly are a liar.
>
> Everything you wrote above is pure BULLSHIT.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Another spammer telling lies about the only filters they can't beat.
>
> Hey spammer:
>
> Kiss my ass.
>
> You are denied access to my mailbox.
>
> Live with it.
>
> Find HONEST work.
>
> ROTF
>
> AC

You don't have a clue who you are replying to, do you?[0]

Have a look at these RFCs. See anything they have in common?[1]

    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/std/std51.html
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1618.html
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1661.html
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1717.html
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1977.html
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1990.html
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2290.html
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3081.html

Vernon has done more to stop spam than you ever will: "Distributed Checksum Clearinghouses"

    http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ "Google Search: dcc spam"

    http://www.google.ca/search?q=dcc+spam&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

He and I have had disagreements (on sociological issues, not technical ones) in the past and I think he has me killfiled. If he speaks on social issues I would take it with a grain of salt. If he speaks on technical issues, including combatting spam, you can be pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

He calls a spade a spade (and not a "multipurpose, manually-operated granular substance relocation tool") -- even when it's not popular. And I have never seen him lying.

[0] NANAE regulars might prefer:

    s/ who you are replying to//
[1] Hint, look at all of the names mentioned in those RFCs.

-- 
Norman De Forest             http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380_at_chebucto.ns.ca            [=||=]            (A Speech Friendly Site)
"One suspects that by now even *Nigerians* have Nigeria blacklisted ;)." 
-- Jim Seymour on 419 scams, news.admin.net-abuse.email, Tue, Nov 19, 2002

Received on Wed Apr 07 2004 - 05:40:15 PDT