C
casebash
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
casebash said:So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
casebash said:So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
Except when viewing it via the uncontrolled Google Groups functionsaid:1. comp.lang.python has relatively little spam, compared to others.
And experience shows that Google doesn't care at all...3. Simple keyword filtering /by whom/? There is no central NG governing
authority.
Not from someone reading Google Groups -- spammers don't bother withThe best response is to ignore[1] the spam posts; they'll eventually expire
and disappear from your newsreader.
casebash said:(e-mail address removed)...
casebash said:So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
I think there is only one final solution to the spam pestilence: a tiny tax
on email and posts.
Spammers send hundreds of thousands of emails/posts a day and a tax of
0.0001$ each does not harm normal users but discurages spammers.
Byung-Hee HWANG said:casebash said:So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
Use (e-mail address removed) [1], instead.
[1] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Nobody said:Apart from the impossibility of implementing such a tax, it isn't going to
discourage spammers when the tax will be paid by the owner of the
compromised PC from which they're sending their spam.
The owner of compromised PC should be responsible of his computer like the
owner of a car is responsible of damages caused by its car.
That owner should keep his computer clean as he *must* keep his car
functional and safe.
Today most of the people consider cyber security an optional, but all of us
pay for their negligence. Those people are externalizing to the rest of the
world their costs in terms of SO updating, antivirus, firewall and
knowledge. This is unfair.
This is mainly a matter of sensibility and culture: in '50/60s active and
passive car safety was an optional, today is a must.
I think it's time to switch to responsible computing and the mail-tax would
charge each person of its own costs and annoyances without affectig the rest
of the world.
This is not the solution. You are saying that if your neighbour makes loud
noises you can not call police to impose him to cease but you can only make
your home soundproof.
It's a question of point of view: in italy if a thief steals a car and
causes an accident the car's owner's assurance (having a car assurance is
mandatory) must refund the victims. That's because protections of victims is
first priority.
Obviously the owner can not be charged
That's a problem of the computer owner. Why should the rest of the world be
charged of *his* problem while keeping him safe from suffering any
consequence?
Madness, you say? Let's examine the situation a bit moore deeply.
First, the mail-tax would is not for rebuilding the destroyed building after
the attack but, at the opposite, to prevent the attack. Wouldn't you pay a
small tax to prevent terrorist's attacks?
The mail-tax would be really small, if you send 1000 mails at month (a real
huge traffic, for a non spammer!) the bill would be about 10 cents.
Do you really think this is too much to get rid of most of the spam?
(...snip)We are paying and hidden tax in terms of HW and human resources needed by
ISPs to manage that huge (~90%) useless/malicius traffic. (I don't mention
const related to dalays, denial of services, theft of informations...)
(snip)Finally a little criticims: spam and related malware is a problem growing
day by day. I am proposing a solution and if somebody doest't like it, well,
he should propose a better one. Just saying "NO!" and turning head aside
hoping that the problem will solve by itsef is no more acceptable.
Il Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:18:46 -0700 (PDT), casebash ha scritto:
I think there is only one final solution to the spam pestilence: a tiny tax
on email and posts.
Spammers send hundreds of thousands of emails/posts a day and a tax of
0.0001$ each does not harm normal users but discurages spammers. This tax
should be applied when a message is routed by a ISP server, this saves
mails/posts internal to a LAN.
David said:I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't being prosecuted, but we are talking
of something else: creating and environment that discurages criminals,
because present enviroment is pretty wild and criminals have a big
advantage.
The mail-tax proposal aims to change this situation.
Il Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:50:14 +0200, Andre Engels ha scritto:
It's an implementation issue, it doesn't touch the sense of proposal.
One possibility is register the mail list to official registers and mail
from a subscriber to other subscribers will be excluded from taxation or
will have a lower tax rate.
An excessive mailing from a single or few subscribers can be easily
detected, traced, filtered and, if the case, prosecuted.
I have read at least one person saying he did not mind his machine being
used to send out spam.
I have read more that one person advocating
leaving one's wi-fi base open for anyone to use as the 'neighborly'
thing to do.
A substantial fraction of people have turned off Window's update.
Consequently, whenever Microsoft announces a vulnerablility and patch,
malware writers can write an exploit of the announced vulnerability and
be sure that they will find vulnerable machines.
That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any harm by
paying for Internet access for your neighbours (and anyone driving down
the street with a laptop and wi-fi).
Took me two weeks of elapsed time and around 30 hours of effort to remove
those suckers from the machine. Now I run Linux, behind two firewalls.
Steven said:That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any harm by
paying for Internet access for your neighbours (and anyone driving down
the street with a laptop and wi-fi).
Unless the 'neighbor' is your friendly local spam or malware merchant
;-)
The rationale I have seen is this: if one leaves the wi-fi router open
and illegal activity is conducted thru it, and there is no residual
evidence on the hard drives of on-premises machines, then one may claim
that it must have been someone else. On the other hand, if the router is
properly closed, then it will be hard to argue that someone hacked
trough it.
There are, of course, flaws in this argument, and I take it as evidence
of intention to conduct illegal activity, whether properly so or not.
The preferred option these days is to slow down net access of theSteven said:This can be done already, without the need for an email tax. ISPs could
easily detect spammers, if they cared to.
There are a few things that can already be done to cut the spam problem
to manageable size:
(1) Why aren't ISPs blocking port 25 for home users by default? My home
ISP does, I can only send email through their mail server unless I ask
them nicely, in which case I'd be responsible for any spam that leaves my
home network. If I send spam, I'll be breaking my terms of service.
(2) Why aren't ISPs cutting off detected spam bots? Owners of zombied PCs
are menaces to society. ISPs are in the best position to detect PCs which
are spamming, and alert the owner. If no action is taken in a week, warn
the owner that they're in breach of their terms of service, and if the
behaviour persists, cut the owner off until they clean up their PC.
Repeat offenders should be banned.
On Sep 1, 10:16 pm, Steven D'Aprano
Takes me less than one hour to rebuild my system
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.