Re: Anti spam methodologies (is it the new frontier?)

[Sherwood Botsford <sherwood@space.ualberta.ca>]

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Andy Poling wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Tim DiLauro wrote:
> > I'm sure it violates more than just some RFC (moral, ethics, maybe?), but
> > I don't know if Andy's really concerned about that right now.  At the
> > point that you decide to shove the spam back down the spammers throat
> > (maybe a few hundred times for good measure) you've decided to punish
> > someone. 
> 
> I'm not really thinking I want to shove it back down their throats - I just
> thought that delivering it back to them allows you to escape the moral
> dilemna of just dropping the spam on the floor...
> 

If you're going to return it to them, instead pipe it to a script.
The script fires off 10 copies right away, then waits 10 seconds,
fires off a few more, Waits 30 seconds, fires off another 2,
Gradually it winds down, sending out the 1000 replies over a 5 day
span.  This mean more action on his part to clear out the returned spam
since's it is mingled with the 'real' replies.  (Spamwich?)





Sherwood Botsford | "Go to father, she said, when I asked her to wed.
Physics Dept      | She knew that I knew that her father was dead.
U of Alberta      | She knew that I knew what a life he had led.
Edmonton, AB,     | She knew that I knew what she meant when she said,
T6G 2J1		  | "Go to father."
New address: sherwood@vega.math.ualberta.ca