What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
18 Comments
- usidoesit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"How can you read an article, get enough interest out of it, to elicit comments and then not digg it?"
I saw that this happens much of the time in digg. The content is not dugg, people don't digg it. It's not that the discussion is not digg-worthy, I would like to digg these comments for example. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the best practice is to use Graylisting, its success is around %99 only draft back, the first time you send email to a new address it takes time, then it’s super fast and NO SPAM at all!
Check http://www.loftmail.com they are using it on the free email service. - Mental64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm, you must have known something, heh.
- durandal2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I still think the best practice is to check addresses against their domain. Most spam comes from spoofed addresses. If its spoofed, it doesn't get through. If its not spoofed and its obvious spam, blacklist it."
Wasn't Yahoo! working on something like this? I think they had some system set up where it would be possible to verify that an email actually came from where it says it did. - brlewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0EricB, that cuts out mail being sent on users' behalf via a web server.
- mrblack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Why not improve the smtp header information to accept some measures that would reveal the true identity of the spammer thus stopping them by not accepting it, if this sounds good?"
alas email headers cannot jump out off the computer and preform biometric tests... one day perhaps. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I still think the best practice is to check addresses against their domain. Most spam comes from spoofed addresses. If its spoofed, it doesn't get through. If its not spoofed and its obvious spam, blacklist it.
- jszorean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's a new protocol proposal called EmailXT that looks promising. It is not just a new idea. A proof-of-concept application is already available. Among all its features, I guess the best one is the fact it is compatible with today's MTA infrastructure. Well worth a look IMHO.
- Mental64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"it's too hard to evade spammers with such an obvious target as an ID standard.
You can't put evasion measures in the address, otherwise TMDA would be the silver bullet.
Whitelisting evasion measures have to go into obscure content.
Not Dugg."
How can you read an article, get enough interest out of it, to elicit comments and then not digg it?
I must be new. - lambright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why not improve the smtp header information to accept some measures that would reveal the true identity of the spammer thus stopping them by not accepting it, if this sounds good?
- dasch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The technology needed for trusted emailing is already here - private key signing. If all citizens and companies would be given a free certificate in a secure manner, then you could choose only to accept emails that have been signed by a trusted entity.
This is already happening where I'm living (Denmark) - I've got a certificate issued by the state (or rather, a company trusted by the state to perform the job) which I can use to log into various state sites, such as the IRS.
The certificate issuer requires confirmation by email and letter. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>"This is not a spam-reduction measure," says Andrew Lochart, senior director of marketing
>for antispam vendor Postini. "It is a way for a legitimate merchant to avoid getting a
>false positive in an AOL spam filter."
when ever i see this kinda wording i know its bad news.
naw, i been an internet netadmin for a long time and i don't like spamm and something needs to be done... but i think whole thing is part of the effort to control all that goes on... its bad. i'd almost say, evil. way worse than the spamm. i'm guessing, but i think that eventually people will have broadband... and a little box on the end of it that is your phone system (astrisk)your firewall/server/router (eh...smoothwall/SME?) your music... your tivo... all in one. it will have to easy... and safer than now. [not too smart to have your server/fiewall/phone/router/music/tivo on the hot end of a net connection] that puts my info more in my control. it means that survellance will have to be done on way too many computers... instead of hacking google, hotmail, yahoo and having access to everyone stuff... OH! you thought GW wouldn't hack google and take what they want? naive. i wonder when google will look at the balance of interests and sees that ignoring government hackers is the least of the evils... - ToadPedestal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hello? What about services like Thawte's free "web of trust" that are already in place? Verisign has something similar, but they charge, so I'm not into it. I imagine there are so many webs of trust out there that people don't know where to start.
Isn't that what it really comes down to: those you trust and those you don't? You could easily trust a few certifiable keys to tell you who are trustworthy and who are spammers, and then from there you could let the web of trust determine who you'd like to get mail from. Since the spam would be signed, it would be pretty easy to verify a spammer.
The only reasonable methodology would be to allow people to pick who they give authoritative trust. Then they could trust something like Google instead of Thawte, should Thawte decide they wanted to sell "trust."
Either that, or we all start signing our messages and then make a repository of signed spam. Then the spammer would have to recalculate a new key for every individual they sent the spam to. Instead of being essentially free to send spam, it would cost time and hardware.
Oh, I have a great idea. Set up a mail system that takes mail from any email address, signs it somehow, and ships it to the recipient. Charge anywhere from $0.10 to $1.00 per email. After 30 days, if nobody reports the sender/recipient/hash to be spam, then the sender gets the money back. In fact, the server could sign a combination of the recipient and message body. This would go into the mail header and you could send it like normal. The recipient would verify the signed hash based on the message. If it doesn't match, it would dump it as spam. If it matches and turns out to be spam, they'd just forward it to the server. Once the email is verified spam, then the recipient and the server would split the money. - usidoesit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's too hard to evade spammers with such an obvious target as an ID standard.
You can't put evasion measures in the address, otherwise TMDA would be the silver bullet.
Whitelisting evasion measures have to go into obscure content.
Not Dugg. - tj_walker_dvt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with spamdies, just block china and Taiwan and Korea and a few other countries from even being able to connect to the US. That will not only drasticly reduce or even stop SPAM, but it will stop the assweeds that keep trying to use a brute force attack to gain entry to my computer network 2 years later and they still keep trying.
- spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0want to block 50 to 70% of spam, just block chinanet
- sethkinast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We already have trusted e-mail. It's called PGP signing.
:P - jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0spamgourmet.com
spamgourmet.com
spamgourmet.com
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is