Re: [Asrg] Passive Spam Revocation

Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> Mon, 26 October 2009 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@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 1EAD828C0F3 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 xYI17HKpUbhb for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:26:29 -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 EE4C528C0E8 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so12569192fxm.7 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:26:41 -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; bh=WFNESU5tmSOEmuz8D1/qFmO49T4nfOddbX7RObyVnpU=; b=Jx2aEOTXtOv5klH2qCTKJj7F4evaVjzRvfr7J//ZTN8f2GYGqUHVn85NvORcYAH5Jm J9bDA/iDeju+8Jc1ft8DQfmpXRcjH8IZh7/mz6+5Vj7eVNWiHk5NuysbX+o8MGjxEJHm qBhURM2TcxBXQHTOkyo1vbLGu5cc4vwpYse9o=
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; b=Sl123i4+S5S1tWtjVU+2ZQiXYoXktWzGIcCt+cbtsv045uRvuC7JffZZDJDpXCAovG 9zDUdM3AS/vR0lnrVMGlE2S5pJPShiApH4ur2GXbPkM1fLRk/5qtWp57X6Zd1LTXRqYM w6EsVOUZWqzAQOBSWwH+oyr3bc4L+xIJrXm3I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.24.130 with SMTP id v2mr14367964bkb.33.1256563600745; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20091026114107.GA8259@gsp.org>
References: <6679e0500910252145j69e51a6frb2cd90c86dff4bb4@mail.gmail.com> <20091026094358.GA32622@gsp.org> <4AE5750F.4000502@mines-paristech.fr> <20091026114107.GA8259@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:26:40 +0200
Message-ID: <18a603a60910260626i3e5afe29nb313cde341e5b09b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555999e0f666c0476d68322
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 13:26:30 -0000

What if the CAPTCHA needs to be solved before the status can be seen?
That would work?

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
>