Re: [Asrg] Passive Spam Revocation

Yao Ziyuan <yaoziyuan@gmail.com> Mon, 26 October 2009 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <yaoziyuan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C924528C13E for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.092, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wH+VRatD0WzF for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f205.google.com (mail-fx0-f205.google.com [209.85.220.205]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB303A6831 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so12876929fxm.7 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nH9H38L6gUgqiudzzvGRfDWPEtpeRG3qFH1E6LdHRTQ=; b=vEULAg6pOOKkK5RwllC+Kh2YoXdXASOrkVDIYaMY+rI5CL0+vf9yDkfdp9hA2VSxSg fL7tWfvZCpT8FFTi8qxkXNTbap4t7VakJtlLf0JxRH09dS1B6IsgtcmOuziBOTPWBvMb dYKTbIcmnKbfoGfsOjEN8Ty0wDz7WfQjdWpGc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YeZZ0n6kAS17zfdHeXWJ91VkD5j/ShmwSXss+X8A+CDfJwuWer20nAURR9y2bfrQAe huF2XDtn3/RdrhcndVTz3eyeOe1qZuSEYiurPXvKWHT/TZD4ZVLBAmp3f2JWKBW79KLr Sq5P99gxuz7y0c2dkcgRNfm6/dklJYqmnacDM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.25.148 with SMTP id z20mr1183445bkb.140.1256582710419; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6679e0500910261135y131c8abft7603a0111b49da5d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6679e0500910252145j69e51a6frb2cd90c86dff4bb4@mail.gmail.com> <20091026094358.GA32622@gsp.org> <4AE5750F.4000502@mines-paristech.fr> <20091026114107.GA8259@gsp.org> <18a603a60910260626i3e5afe29nb313cde341e5b09b@mail.gmail.com> <6679e0500910261135y131c8abft7603a0111b49da5d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:45:10 +0800
Message-ID: <6679e0500910261145m1520eb20ndcaaa98c10e55337@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yao Ziyuan <yaoziyuan@gmail.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Passive Spam Revocation
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:44:59 -0000

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Yao Ziyuan <yaoziyuan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What if the CAPTCHA needs to be solved before the status can be seen?
>> That would work?
>
> Right. The sender can set a "wait period" for every outgoing message

for important messages

> -- if the wait period is over and there is no reply, his mail client
> can remind him to solve the CAPTCHA to see and fix the status.
>
>>
>> pars
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:08:15AM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
>>> wrote:
>>> > On the other hand, consider valid the hypothesis that spammers don't
>>> > know what kind of filter is being used (by some particular site) is also
>>> > a bad idea.
>>>
>>> Oh, I agree.  It's long been known that [some] spammers have taken pains
>>> to track the characteristics of target sites/systems/networks/etc.  And
>>> some of those sites are (in various ways) "announcing" details of their
>>> configuration to the outside world, which makes that task easier.
>>>
>>> ---Rsk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Asrg mailing list
>>> Asrg@irtf.org
>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Asrg mailing list
>> Asrg@irtf.org
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>>
>>
>