On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 13 Aug 2002, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > I currently get something like 150 to 200 spams a day. That is not a > > misprint. I use tools to nuke most of it, but some still gets through > > -- luckily not much. > > I also get several hundred spams a day - many megabytes. > > I'm slowly working on an idea (not yet clearly formed) to constipate the > TCP stacks of those sending spam. > > The core aspect of the idea is to make my TCP stack as near-dead as > possible, without actually being dead, to incoming spam. That will cause > spam transfers to take orders of magnitude more time than they do today. [...] That's an interesting idea; it has a few IMO unnecessary complexities, but it accomplishes the most important thing: making sending spam "cost more" (for any definition of 'cost') for the sender. In this case the added cost would be more computer resources, less spam sent rather than money; but that would be an improvement still. I don't believe we will be able to be able to send bills or really "pay" for sent messages, at least in the near term: that just requires too much (both technical, legislative and administrative) infrastructure. But something to make spammers' acts more difficult would possibly help in throttling the amount of spam. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords