[LINK] getting rid of image spam

[Craig Sanders]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:12:29AM +1100, Adam Todd wrote:
> This kinda proves my point 

you have no point, todd. you're a pathetic waste of space who takes
every opportunity to reduce every thread to being about you and your
paranoid delusions.

you're worse than our other resident troll - vic likes to cause a fight
over some issue (no matter how misguided), but you troll for attention,
any attention, positive or negative as long as you get to crap on about
yourself.

i'm really sick and tired of you and your self-serving whiny rants about
you, how amazingly wnderful you are, how you did/invented/thought of
everything before anyone else, your absurd battles with your father
(which only proves that insanity can be genetic), your unsurprising
run-ins with any bureacracy unfortunate enough to have to deal with your
crackpot self, your boring films, and your unfortunate children. and i'm
actively sickened when you make some lamely smutty "joke". makes me want
to puke.

i'd gladly put up with vic and think myself very fortunate if only you
would leave. at least he doesnt foward his spam to LINK as if it's in
any way unusual or comment-worthy.



> that Craig prefers to false positive block EVERYTHIGN and reject      
> things, than to filter correctly.                                     

1. what i do on my own home server is my business. not yours, and not
anyone else's.

2. your opinions on spam blocking are worth exactly as much as your
opinions on any other topic - i.e. utterly worthless - because you think
that challenge/response systems are a good idea. that is a cretinous
opinion to hold because C/R systems actually contribute to the spam
problem by sending a "challenge" to the *invariably* forged sender
address of the spam or virus. most of the time, this is undeliverable so
it does little harm except to your own server (and possibly the server
of the recipient domain). sometimes, though (when the forged address is
actually a real address belonging to an innocent third party), it ends
up spamming them....or, with some C/R software, actually spreading the
virus to them if it forwards the entire original message as part of the
"challenge".

C/R systems offload YOUR spam/virus problem onto innocent third parties
- why should THEY have to deal with YOUR spam? they've already been
harmed once when the spammer/virus forged their domain, now they're
being harmed again because you and your cretinous software spams
them. all because you're too fucking lazy to deal with your own spam
yourself...you offload the work and hassle and bandwidth of dealing with
it to others.

in short, C/R systems do no good AT ALL, but they can do significant
harm.

3. my spam filtering works. it works extremely well, and with very
few (i.e. almost none) false-positives - that's because my rules
are personally crafted by me and i know what kind of mail my server
typically gets. most FPs are messages talking about spam, by someone
careless enough to either include a real spam or common spam phrases in
their message. i consider them to be a small loss - and i can always go
look at the mailing list archives if i really need to read them.



> Sadly if Craig were to legitimately use PayPal or Ebay, he isn't going
> to get the messages!

more proof that you're a cretin. i do legitimately use paypal and ebay.
i still get the fucking spam. that's because you get phishing spam about
paypal and ebay REGARDLESS of whether you use the services or not. same
with phishing spam for banks all over the world. phishers don't give a
damn that they're spamming thousands or millions of people who don't
even have the relevant accounts, they only care that their spam gets to
some (hopefully stupid) ones who do.


> And if the AFP (or Auscert or ACCC or ACME) send him something about
> Fraud Prevention in reply to a message he sends them, it will be
> rejected too :)

to me, that's a reasonable price to pay. and it's my mail server, so I
get to decide. the chances of anyone legitimately sending me an email
with FRAUD PREVENTION in the Subject header is miniscule and they almost
certainly wouldn't be telling me anything i dont already know, whereas
having the anti-phishing regexp saves me from receiving dozens of
fucking phishing messages per day. that's a trade-off that is well worth
paying.

> Not very elegant in my view.

your view is a) irrelevent, b) cretinous.

i have nothing but contempt and loathing for you.

please FOAD.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)