From: zinc <zinc@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>
To: Alan Bostick <abostick@netcom.com>
Message Hash: ef85149d6d15aa4749773375c729796a6ec7228523ed8229264ba8ebb682917c
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960112135217.4191B-100000@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>
Reply To: <Q6q9w8m9LYlM085yn@netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-12 20:58:43 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Jan 96 12:58:43 PST
From: zinc <zinc@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 96 12:58:43 PST
To: Alan Bostick <abostick@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Novel use of Usenet and remailers to mailbomb from luzskru@cpcnet.com
In-Reply-To: <Q6q9w8m9LYlM085yn@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960112135217.4191B-100000@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
regarding remailer spams:
one way to prevent this sort of spamming is to put a cap on the number
of messages that can be delivered to a given address. of course, an
exception will have to be made for instances of chaining so that the
number of messages allowed to be forwarded to another remailer is not
limited.
i'm trying to think of a scenario where this would not be a good
thing. i suppose if somone was conducting an anonymous poll their
address should not have a limit.
i'm sure there are problems with a mesg quota system, but it does seem
like an easy solution.
- -pjf
patrick finerty = zinc@zifi.genetics.utah.edu = pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu
U of Utah biochem grad student in the Bass lab - zinc fingers + dsRNA!
** FINGER zinc-pgp@zifi.genetics.utah.edu for pgp public key - CRYPTO!
zifi runs LINUX 1.3.56 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by mkpgp1.6, a Pine/PGP interface.
iQCVAwUBMPbLOE3Qo/lG0AH5AQHJWgQAmvlOnHIAiWZz3Dw/czAeKEeylCTUVxRi
BFTwFPbwTR2QtwcLfDpw5+Ym/Qss2jx1MVoVJuTbjx4D7GGitSdYSWN6TuAapUdr
oeFPo5+EuIwAT77luwYWa9gXYN36IZlWuzYgdbjkMorxz0UwSn4Y8U1fnaAmTh1e
GwZhC5+tcZw=
=bzmC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to January 1996
Return to “zinc <zinc@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>”