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

[James MacKinnon <jmack@Phys.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...

Re-spamming the spammer might be considered good justice...

How about a simple form message back to the spammer ;-)

Dear Mail Spammer:
	Due to unforeseen circumstances as a result of your post
(no free disk, no more processes) we couldn't handle your spam content mail,
and lost it in transition. To compensate, we are sending you this message
exactly 100000000 times to balance out the bytesize content in total of
your message if it could have been delivered to all recipients.
Sorry for the inconvenience.


Cheers,
--
James S. MacKinnon           Office: P-139 Avahd-Bhatia Physics Lab
Team Physics                 Voice : (403) 492-8226
University of Alberta        email : Jim.MacKinnon@Phys.UAlberta.CA
Edmonton, Canada T6G 2N5
        WWW:   http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~jmack/jmack.html