Sending this again, since Harald claims here: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22200.html That he is not censoring me, yet my 3rd post on this thread: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22198.html Has already appeared (thank you Harald) while after some hours, the 2nd post I made (this email) has not. I will also be emailing Harald privately to find out why my repeated attempts in last few hours to unsubscribe (so I would not be provoked by new posts) are not being recognized by Majordomo (still receiving email from list). >Already been done, and better - Consider a virus that installs an open proxy >for spammers to use. Do the lit review yourself if you can't name which one(s) >did this (yes, more than one has).l Valdis what you describe is not the same as what I described. The virus must run autonomously in order to have the effect at the scale I described. Such a virus would want to be on the order of > 1 million computers sending > 10,000 random spams per day (or any combinations of the same product, e.g. 100,000 sending 100,000). If you assume that 10 billion spams are sent per day now, and that DCC, Bayesian, etc catch 90% of them, then 10 billion undetected spams would give inversion of performance (from 90% detected to 10% detected). >Do the lit review for which famous viruses created havoc by sending around >other attachment at random off a person's disk. Viral attachments are easily to block, so you would not want an attachment in the outgoing spam. Reread what I wrote last post about the potential virus could spread itself orthogonally to it's spam function. >However, keep in mind that the spam can't be TOO randomized and still >convey a message Conveying a message wasn't what I suggested a the virus could do. I proposed it would simply disrupt antispam systems and wreck havoc on the email system. It is a macho thing, such as the "ILOVEU" virus from the Philippines. I should disclose that I am currently visiting the Philippines for a conference (field research) on this (check my IP address). With a truely random content (except normal words and normal word distribution, "normal" in uniform statistical distribution sense), and with a huge volume, you need not care if any one reads it. The only point would be to get past the antispam systems and users who were formerly getting 90% antispam would be seeing more like 10% (missing a zero in my previous post) antispam and 90% spam. I wonder how actual field research other "experts" actually do on virus/spam havens. >Already being done: Consider the following obfuscations seen in today's spam No I meant truely random ordering of *normal* words. I usually mean what I write. The *normal* words are needed to avoid Bayesian filters. >We're quite aware of the architectural problems. We're also aware of exactly >what it would take to deploy a solution.... Nice boast but imo you have proven otherwise in the way you handled my posts, which is going to be quite clear to independent (outside) observers, when/if the "mega spam virus" I described herein hits the world. > >> Lastly I have done the full background search at ASRG (IRTF), and I did not >> find prior art for either the proposal I made to legitimize bulk email by >> moving it to "pull", nor the prior art for our soon to be patent-pending >> anti-spam algorithm. > >Your search was incomplete, and here's some prior art. The one you quoted is referring to "RSS" which is not entirely correlated with what I proposed. I proposed using POP (or what ever the receiptient prefers) which does not require a "complete overhaul of email clients" as quoted as one of the complaints in thread you mention. I have long ago in the this list readily admitted that message pull has existed for a long time, such as our past discussion of usenet. Also the one you quoted does not discuss the benefits I proposed, such as the ability to define spam at other nodes in the channel than the pyschology of "unsolicited" and the benefits that follow such a logic. BTW, I noticed there were no reasonable objections in the thread you quoted regarding overall concept of email pull. > Make sure that the >claims on your patent don't cover anything in this message, as that would >of course be a big no-no. You are confusing 2 different things. Please read my posts more carefully. The proposal I made here has nothing to do with the antispam algorithm we developed. I stated "time-domain analysis" (idea only, no details found) as the closest thing found at ASRG, but not substantial or correlated (just an idea, no details) enough to be prior art, as Vernon and you claim. Shelby Moore http://AntiViotic.com