Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Great, this is just what we need.
E.T
Quote-o-matic
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39186364,00.htm[/url]
Looks like spammers are really declaring war to rest of community so I suggest we take it as war and treat them considering that.
I bet that most of spam problem would disappear fast if spammers would be executed publicly.
Or for beneficial punishment... Use them as labrats for studying Ebola.
Looks like spammers are really declaring war to rest of community so I suggest we take it as war and treat them considering that.
I bet that most of spam problem would disappear fast if spammers would be executed publicly.
Or for beneficial punishment... Use them as labrats for studying Ebola.
Comments
honestly, who is stupid enough to encourage spammers anyway?! anytime me or my friends see spam in our inboxes and its 'click' goodbye!
[B]Give them to me for a few weeks. [/B][/QUOTE]What for do you need two weeks?
With [url=http://www.cabeitalia.it/schede_ing/enaxsing.html]this[/url] one minute would be enough... although some of [url=http://www.tapiopirttinen.com/ssm.htm]these[/url] might be better. (like [url=http://www.tapiopirttinen.com/ssm.htm]this[/url] for example)
But that would be way too fast death so in that aspect studying Ebola would be best option... and of course they would publish "patient's" photos while at different stages of it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]honestly, who is stupid enough to encourage spammers anyway?![/B][/QUOTE]Human is stupid animal!
If no one wouldn't buy anything from them whole problem would fade away.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead."
-Aldous Huxley
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein
-- E-mail protocols are weak
It is computationally too inexpensive for senders -- permitting them to trick other machines to send in bulk. A protocol hardened against spam should *not* contain such possibilities. Its servers and clients should automatically disadvantage a machine (or number of machines) too hungry for bandwidth.
To solve the problem, the e-mail protocol must be either discarded or modified, making it computationally expensive to send millions of messages (especially to non-existent addresses).
If sending in bulk will introduce a penalty in offered bandwidth, and sending to non-existent addresses will introduce a timeout... it should be fairly inconvenient to spam.
-- People leave their computers vulnerable
While computers exist which can be hijacked easily... exploited by a third party... improvement in protocols will not bring a qualitative change.
Each computer must be capable of standing up for itself -- and wasting the time of an attacker long enough to make compromising it unprofitable.
[B]Wishing Ebola for spammers will solve nothing.[/B][/QUOTE]It would solve it, if punishment is hard enough compared to possible profits there wouldn't be much of those willing to participate in "spam industry".
That's what deterrent means.
(or how is it that in Islamic countries street vendors can keep jewellery and gold in counter without need to guard them with shotgun?)
It would solve it, if punishment is hard enough compared to possible profits there wouldn't be much of those willing to participate in "spam industry".
That's what deterrent means.[/quote]
Punishment disproportional to crime invites abuse, and contradicts multiple preconditions of civil society. If you ask me... I'd rather receive ten times more spam than take a single step which could seriously threaten civil society.
Disproportional punishment creates more problems than solves... and therefore cannot truly be said to "solve" anything. (Besides: it ought to be fairly easy to frame someone as a spammer.)
Making computers more difficult to exploit... would oppositely, remove needless dependencies, and strengthen communications networks against other hazards (like viruses, worms and spyware).
[quote](or how is it that in Islamic countries street vendors can keep jewellery and gold in counter without need to guard them with shotgun?)[/QUOTE]
Islamic countries are many and different. However, I understand your hint. Some of them are extremely keen on physical punishments.
Now consider: do they have notably lower overall rates of crime... or is crime merely shifted to other fields? I suspect the latter. Petty criminals have been deterred by giving power to bigger criminals -- corrupt and authoritarian governments.
Likewise consider: a person wrongly fined, or wrongly imprisoned... can be compensated or released. A person whose hand was cut off... cannot be given a new hand.
Justice systems which don't consider the possibility that they too might err and commit injustice... are not desirable in any sense. [u]To trade social balance for a slight increase in bandwidth or processing time... would be foolish and nothing else.[/u]
-------
Besides, regarding those who sell jewellery... how do you know they don't have a shotgun, or at least a pistol or knife? ;) They wouldn't put *those* onto the counter.
Likewise, in certain Islamic countries, say Afghanistan a few years back... I somewhat doubt if anyone dared to keep precious items on counter (at least without keeping an automatic rifle under it).