Something that kills spam but better.

Post #114,998 by Another Scott 8/22/03 7:24:30 PM Reply	Something that kills spam but better. I.e. something that works very well, doesn't require user intervention, that kills spam before being downloaded to the client, and is easy to setup on almost any OS or any POP or IMAP server. In other words, something like SpamAssasin on the server but something that's so trivial to setup that users don't have to think about it. Perhaps there will be such an uprising by users that ISPs will be forced to implement something like SA on their servers. E-mail is going to become unusable for most people unless something changes so that spam and viruses and trojans and worms aren't so much of a problem. My wife almost never uses her e-mail, but she got 46+ copies of the latest Win worm on her account yesterday. (She uses MacOS 8.6 so Spam Assassin isn't an option.) Either some sort of trust mechanism is going to have to be made trivial for users or something like SA on servers is going to have to become ubiquitous or e-mail is going to become unusable. It's also affecting the whole internet infrastructure, so something needs to be done. Some institution like CERT or W3C or similar should be working on solving this spam/worm/virus/trojan problem, I think. Cheers, Scott.
Post #115,031 by deSitter 8/23/03 1:33:53 AM Reply	Re: Something that kills spam but better. I was thinking the exact same thing - but what I want is a "good" virus, that kills the bad ones by intercepting them. If you can roll in an SMTP server, you can also roll in a meandering firewall. -drl
Post #115,103 by gdaustin 8/23/03 10:40:27 PM Reply	Re: Something that kills spam but better. But I want my spam killer to track my message back to it's source. If there are thousands of others who were sent the same (exact) message, delete it from my inbox. If the message is customized for me, then perhaps it's worth a look. Also, I'd kind of like a spam "blacklist", of IP addresses that are common sources of spam. That probably already exists, I just need to find it. AOL has some features that my wife uses (we have AOL for the wife/kids and ComCast cable modem). The kids' accounts block all email except for people that the master account specifically authorizes. Since the kids are still young, I think this is a good idea. I have tried to use the block email/domain feature the past, but spammers change their domains and accounts frequently enough, or use domains like aol.com or comcast.net that the value is almost worthless. I had thought about modifying the email protocol to only deliver mail if the reply to: address on the email could be validated to be a good email address. Invalid reply to address, the email doesn't get delivered. This would cover a lot of cases, except for what I call "chain" spammers who put the prior person in the list as sender and reply to address. Then you're just validating the email address of another victim. Glen Austin
Post #115,106 by tuberculosis 8/23/03 10:52:16 PM Reply	Yes it should trace the spam back and kill the sender Smalltalk is dangerous. It is a drug. My advice to you would be don't try it; it could ruin your life. Once you take the time to learn it (to REALLY learn it) you will see that there is nothing out there (yet) to touch it. Of course, like all drugs, how dangerous it is depends on your character. It may be that once you've got to this stage you'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to "go back" to other languages and, if you are forced to, you might become an embittered character constantly muttering ascerbic comments under your breath. Who knows, you may even have to quit the software industry altogether because nothing else lives up to your new expectations. --AndyBower
Post #115,114 by deSitter 8/23/03 11:37:52 PM Reply	Airbags Laptops should have airbags and an LMSENSORS driver to activate them at the appropriate moment. -drl
Post #115,543 by Another Scott 8/27/03 11:23:07 AM Reply	Maybe "behavior blocking" software like this Reg story. [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/32510.html\|Here]. In defending against the worm, the Internet community may have to move towards a new defensive posture. More of the same just won't do. Virus filtering services from ISPs and managed services firms will become a more attractive alternative, despite the privacy concerns involved in their use. In the short term AV firms can look to a boost in sales from the publicity generated by the Sobig outbreak. Changes But Symantec, McAfee, Sophos and the rest would do well to look over their shoulder. Behaviour blocking technology - which is able to stop malicious code executing on the desktop - could supplant AV tools as the first line of defence against viral code. Cisco's acquisition of behaviour blocking firm Okena earlier this year signals that heavyweights are eyeing this market for growth. In this scenario, conventional AV tools would then become file disinfectors - not the first line of defence against malicious code. It's a good read. Andrew might find some information useful for his [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit033.html\|Windows Worms] writeup. Cheers, Scott.
Post #115,844 by jb4 8/29/03 1:50:06 PM Reply	Re: Something that kills spam but better. How about something that you feed spam, and it "identifies" (through heuristics, AI, neural nets, all that Kewl 1970s stuff) fundamental attributes of spam. Then filters it per your instructions (e.g. discard, quarantine, reply all, etc.) jb4 Boy I'd like to see those words on a PR banner behind [Treasury Secretary John] Snow at the podium: Jobs and Growth: Just Wait. John J. Andrew, unemployed programmer; see jobforjohn.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!