John Stracke <jstracke@centivinc.com> writes: > Mmm, but that pours gasoline on the villagers' torches. It'd be > much more clearly a crime, since it's so obviously an attempt to > evade the recipient's filters. Right now, they add random garbage in various parts of the message to make Brightmail-style blocking harder, forge return addresses, use open relays, masquerade as legitimate mail by using deceptive subject lines, masquerade as occidentally misdirected mail, use Javascript to obstruct investigation of the URLs they provide, use .EXE files for the same purpose, insert misleading stuff in HTML comments, etc. Do you think one more technique will do much damage to their reputation? Every time there's a popular spam-blocking method, the spammers would evade it. >> If Javascript works in the recipient's MUA, then you have > ...an idiotic MUA. (Yeah, I know I'm using one that supports it; but > it's turned off.) I think you missed the point. I don't have a Javascript interpreter in my version of Emacs. That wouldn't help me at all if spammers have the expectation that most people's MUAs will process Javascript. For me, their spam would be unreadable. Do they care? -- Stanislav Shalunov http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/ But we must show them that they cannot terrorize the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. And we won't. -- George W. Bush, 20011017