On 06/20/02, "Geo." <georger@getinfo.net> wrote:
That was kinda my point. We need to stop this pushing and shoving back and forth and find solutions that work and don't depend on bending every ISP on the planet to conformity because that's never going to happen. The forcing approach reminds me of copy protection, lets force everyone to be good. Guess what, it's a big network and it's getting bigger and you'll never get everyone to conform. So I suggest we take a different road whether that be dynamic blocking as soon as a spamming starts or heuristic filters or whatever else we can come up with that works.
Note, I'm not saying don't use spews, just realize it's a copy protection type of approach and will be of limited success for the same reasons.
Copy protection is a good comparison, and one which I haven't seen before. However, dynamic blacklists will eventually fall into the same trap; spammers will find ways around 'em. Static or dynamic, you're still trying to apply a purely technical solution to a social problem. All that said, I do agree that dynamic lists are the obvious next step; they'll probably buy us another six months to a year. But spamcop's in specific is still based on spamcop user complaints, and most of the spamcop user complaints I've seen have been grossly mistargetted. -- J.D. Falk "It's all vegan, except for <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> the goat squeezings!" -- rachel