Oprano Adult Industry Forums - Is Spam solved by 2006?

Oprano Adult Industry Forums (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php)

- Legacy Archived Main Board (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Is Spam solved by 2006? (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=33213)

Quote:

DAVOS, Switzerland - A spam-free world by 2006? That's what Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates is promising.

"Two years from now, spam will be solved," he told a select group of World Economic Forum participants at this Alpine ski resort. "And a lot of progress this year," he added at the event late Friday, hosted by U.S. talk show host Charlie Rose.

Gates said Microsoft, where he has the title of chief software designer, is working on a solution based on the concept of "proof," or identifying the sender of the e-mail.

One method involves a human challenge, or requiring the sender of an electronic pitch to solve a puzzle that only a flesh-and-blood person can handle. Another is a so-called "computational puzzle" that a computer sending only a few messages could easily handle, but that would be prohibitively expensive for a mass-mailer.

But the most promising, Gates said, was a method that would hit the sender of an e-mail in the pocketbook.

People would set a level of monetary risk — low or high, depending on their choice — for receiving e-mail from strangers. If the e-mail turns out to be from a long-lost relative, for example, the recipient would charge nothing. But if it is unwanted spam, the sender would have to fork over the cash.

"In the long run, the monetary (method) will be dominant," Gates predicted.

He conceded, however, that his prognostications have not always been on the mark. Notable misjudgments include the rising popularity of open-source software, epitomized by Linux, and the success of the Google search engine.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d_forum_gates_1

So what do you think? :)

He'll be wrong. If it's a new microsoft product it will be bugged and late ;-)

Just remember, there's no reason anyone would ever need more than 640k. :rolleyes:

gee, how original, a challenge response system.

arent there like 40 companies doing this already?

Lot of people have been pushing the taxing system. Not sure it will work because most surfers are stupid.

I do agree with Bill however that spam can only be solved by the private sector, not the gov't. They passed the new law,and I have seen an INCREASE in spam.

I´m wondering if they are making:

A: client and server versions
B: server version

If its A, then they can spread this much faster than any other antispam tool out there, since they have Windows. It would probably also mean that they are working on other security issues aswell, which will make it harder to spread virus, spyware, dialers etc. to normal end users.

If its B, then this will only be one of many solutions to spam which is comming out, and this will leave spammers/mailers with more options.

However the message is clear... in 2006 most people will have somekind of anti spam tool with their mail address - and those making software "doctors" rich, and spammers poor :awinky:

The spam issue could be solved fairly easily by replacing SMTP with a more robust, more "secure" protocol for mail services. SMTP basically accepts whatever crap gets sent to it, and does little or nothing to verify that the mail is good.

You will not solve the spam problem by attempting to filter, tax, or otherwise prod spammers into not mailing, it won't work. You cannot impose an international tax on spam... not going to happen.

Stop spam from being sent or processed... make email 99.9% traceable, don't create a system that allows headers to be fucked with, and you have yourself a solution. Challenge systems just mean more junk bouncing around in circles, and it is a system that can easily be circumvented by a mail center in a third world country filled with people typing the challenge words back in.

Anyone out the good enough to re-write SMTP protocol? I have a plan :-)

Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 26 2004, 06:50 AM
Just remember, there's no reason anyone would ever need more than 640k. :rolleyes:

Thank you, Carrie. I knew someone would beat me to saying this.