Crime prevention reduces prosecutions, which is a bad thing?
Stephen *off to remove all those locks*
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 10:05:55AM +0100, Lee Hosty wrote:
> David Murphy wrote:
>> >On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 10:59:12AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> >>(1) Wouldn't it be fairly simple to restrict the number of email
> >>messages sent out by each customer, to say 10 or 20?
> >>Or 5 per hour, or whatever.
> >You could do that, but remember, spam and anti-virus tools can examine
> >outbound mail too! If I were running a cybercafe, I'd redirect all SMTP
> >traffic to a local mailserver, and scan all the mails for spam and
> >viruses, saving copies of suspicious traffic for later inspection. This
> The only drawback being that there'd be no grounds to prosecute any 419
> scammers who abused your system. Their emails don't delivered; no one
> gets scammed; no grounds for prosecution. Is it better to let the 419ers
> have their fun for a bit so they can be caught and locked up? Or stop
> them in their tracks so that they only send mails where they can't be
> caught / prosecuted ?
> Irish Linux Users' Group
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!