tmda (was: Re: [ILUG] jpeg patented...)

[kevin lyda]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 11:12:34PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> oh yes, see you've setup that tdma thingy, so here's a thought. do
> you reckon spammers (or the software they use) is/are smart enough to
> 
> 	s/\(.\)+\+.*@\([a-zA-Z\.0-9\-]\)/\1@\2/
> 
> on email addresses? it's a fairly old trick, so i dont see why they
> wouldnt.

the dated address that my from appears as is a good address for five days
for anyone.  after that it requires a confirm message from the sender.
my regular email address requires a confirm address if i haven't
explicitly given permission to the sender.

and yes, spammers could try to set up a system to reply to my confirm
messages, but that would require them to a) give out a valid email address
in their From headers, and b) use a lot more bandwidth then they do now
(thereby costing them more money).

oh, and they can't forge confirm messages.  the confirm message system
works something like this:

    message goes in the pending q and is assigned an id.
    that id is encrypted and used to create the from address of the
	outgoing confirm mail - kevin+confirm+kghdsfg at ie.suberic.net
    only a message to that address will work to free the message from
	the q (or i can free it using tmda-pending).

all of this is discussed on http://tmda.sf.net/

kevin

-- 
kevin at suberic.net     that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to
fork()'ed on 37058400    the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier
meatspace place: home       than a sober one. the happiness of credulity is a
http://ie.suberic.net/~kevin   cheap & dangerous quality -- g.b. shaw