[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:45, Simon Waters wrote:
So the spam will come from elsewhere - so the benefit is only ensuring Paypal scams come from Paypal employees and crackers, or paypa1.com
Effective spam will come from where it says it comes from ... which exposes the spammer/scammer to a significantly increased personal risk. Compromising machines may be easy, but compromising _particular selected_ machines I'd expect to be harder, again if the attacks on them have to be targetted rather than random the attacker is exposed a little more.
| It doesn't address impersonation at all.
I think you missed the point here. That is all it addresses and it does it badly.
A difference of interpretation perhaps - machines are not yet people.
The antispam houses claim they know who the people who send the bulk of spam, and they claim they have provided this information to the US Department of Commerce. So if you want a "social solution" press for enforcement.
Part of the governments though will prefer to see the problem get larger, so that when they announce that email may only be sent under conditions enforced by universal identification, absence of cryptography etc etc there will be a public acceptance. I think thinking globally and acting locally is the way. -- Adrian Midgley (Linux desktop) GP, Exeter http://www.defoam.net/ -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.