From: pack-news@rattus.net
Russ Allbery writes:
> Bruce Murphy writes:
>
> > Frankly, increasing numbers of places offer something like tagged email
> > addresses, and once you /have/ set something like that up with a
> > specific USENET address, it's actually pretty easy to set up extremely
> > effective filters, since USENET replies will have a fairly specific
> > form.
>
> Yeah, I posted something about that a long time back to the net-abuse
> groups and even wrote a test implementation, where all messages addressed
> to a particular address were rejected unless the message contained a
> References or In-Reply-To header containing a particular message ID
> pattern.
An even more complex, but arguably more interesting, way of doing it
is to add a unique token to every email address. These tokens can then
be individually expired into varying levels of spam-filtering. Cute
idea, but overkill in many respects.
> I personally have other ways of dealing with spam and therefore
> never bothered to implement it for myself, but it seemed like a fairly
> obvious idea five years ago. I'm surprised it never seemed to gain any
> traction.
I find that most other ways of dealing with spam tend to be higher
maintenance than this. Speaking as someone involved in afairly large
project on the matter of course :)
> Note that one big problem with tagged addresses is that a lot of them just
> add something onto one's main mailbox. That's exactly the wrong way to do
> it, since of course spammers routinely just strip the tags. The right way
> to do tagged addresses is to post from rra+usenet@stanford.edu, have
> rra@stanford.edu bounce or go through very aggressive spam filtering, and
> have one's personal inbox be rra+xqr or something else equally
> unguessable.
'pack' isn't my normal email prefix :), Yes, it's all presupposed on
having enough foresight to start something like this up immediately.
B>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
