Do you have any idea how to unsubscribe from this list? I have tried numerous times but can't get Majordomo to do it. I've tried sending "unsubscribe ietf" in subject and body to Majordomo@ieft.org, ietf-request@ietf.org. Since the list won't stop sending me email, I guess I will respond one more time... (was going to send privately as I have been with Dean debate... but what the heck!) >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 No this is not the same as what I described. The virus must run autonomously in order to have the effect at the scale I described. >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. >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 on this (check my IP address). With a truely random content (except normal words and word distribution), 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. >Already being done: Consider the following obfuscations seen in today's spam No I meant truely random order of *normal* words. I usually mean what I write. The *normal* words are needed to avoid Bayesian. >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 observers, when the virus I mentioned 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 what I proposed. I proposed using POP (or what ever the receiptient prefers) which does not require a complete overhaul of email clients. 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 but not quite prior art at ASRG. Shelby Moore http://AntiViotic.com