Re: OT: offending sig + headers
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:06:12AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Friday, May 18 at 11:54 AM, quoth Jeff Macdonald:
> >> is that it's one of these anti-spam measures that only work until
> >> it gets widespread enough for spammers to decide to do something
> >> about it (they own enough always-on Windows spam-bots after all,
> >> it's not like they're too short on resources; not retrying is just
> >> laziness on their part).
> >
> > Having to queue messages should end up using the 'owned' box's disk
> > space and slow down the sending rate. I would hope that would draw
> > attention to the owner of the box.
>
> HEH, I think that's probably wishful thinking.
Yes, it probably is.
> When I think about my grandmother, who uses the computer to type up
> the occasional letter and keep track of who lives in what room of the
> retirement home she volunteers for, I have trouble imagining her
> taking much notice of the disk being a few gigabytes more full, or
> the computer being a bit slower to download all the Windows updates
> than it was the last time (it's not like she sat through that
> download the last time anyway).
Eventually she'll ask you what happened to all her disk space! :)
> Or did you have some other "typical user" of an always-on infected
> Windows box in mind?
I agree that that spammers will evolve, but delaying email seems to be
a better alternative than challenge-response or Derek's unique system.
Having queued messages on a system that is found would probably help
support a legal case too.
Ok, perhaps I'm dreaming. :)
--
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxx
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com