Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 02:32:43 von mig30m6

Hello
I have a friend who, when sending email over the last month, has been
required to verify the fact that they are a Yahoo account holder,
before sending every message. For those non-Yahoo users, the
verification consists of picking out letter and number combinations
obscured by a textured background and typing what you see into a blank
box. Upon verification, your message is then sent. Yahoo states that
it uses this method of verification to prevent spamming by its users.
I am aware of SBC Communication email users having to do the same thing
due to the fact that Yahoo hosts their email. However, in my friend's
case, she is not an SBC user and is not even based with the continental
United States. The type of Yahoo account this person has is a 100%
free version. I am also aware of several Yahoo users that do NOT get
the sender verification of or at all. The sender verification screen
will also appear when you send your first message after logging in so
it's not like the Yahoo mail cookie has timed out. If a person left
their accoount open for several hours I could understand but not in
this case. Is anyone else with a free Yahoo account going through this
bs? I'd also like to hear from any SBC users who might shed some light
as your mail server is actually a Yahoo mail server. Thanks very much
and if anyone has problems understanding this message, let me know
because it is a bit of a mess.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 06:15:24 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in
<1132191163.000012.67530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"mig30m6@hotmail.com" wrote:

> Hello I have a friend who, when sending email over the last
> month, has been required to verify the fact that they are
> a Yahoo account holder, before sending every message. For
> those non-Yahoo users, the verification consists of picking
> out letter and number combinations obscured by a textured
> background and typing what you see into a blank box. Upon
> verification, your message is then sent. Yahoo states that it
> uses this method of verification to prevent spamming by its
> users. I am aware of SBC Communication email users having
> to do the same thing due to the fact that Yahoo hosts their
> email. However, in my friend's case, she is not an SBC user
> and is not even based with the continental United States. The
> type of Yahoo account this person has is a 100% free version.
> I am also aware of several Yahoo users that do NOT get the
> sender verification of or at all. The sender verification
> screen will also appear when you send your first message after
> logging in so it's not like the Yahoo mail cookie has timed
> out. If a person left their accoount open for several hours
> I could understand but not in this case. Is anyone else with
> a free Yahoo account going through this bs? I'd also like to
> hear from any SBC users who might shed some light as your mail
> server is actually a Yahoo mail server. Thanks very much and
> if anyone has problems understanding this message, let me know
> because it is a bit of a mess.
>

That massive paragraph is a real mess, but you seem to be
describing a Challenge-Response system.

The reason you don't see it from all users is that they haven't
chosen to activate that feature.

Earthlink has offered a C/R option to all of its users for many
years.

They work incredibly well if one is interested in keeping
spammers and trolls and whiners out of one's mailboxes.

Once you return the Challenge with the proper password, (which
can involve going to a website and filling out a form) that
address should be passlisted there, and you wouldn't have to do
it again.

I use a C/R system on my non-Usenet addresses and LOVE it.

I wonder if you are a spammer or troll that has just learned
that he can't mail people who use C/R systems without using
his real return address.

If so, I have one thing to say:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Note: I don't read the posts of "Sam" or any of his
many aliases, nor any responses to them.]

AC

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml
http://www.netcomhost.net/wordpress/victims-of-alan-connor/

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 11:11:20 von ABC

Alan Connor wrote:

> I wonder if you are a spammer or troll that has just learned
> that he can't mail people who use C/R systems without using
> his real return address.

> AC
>

No wondering about you. We all know you are one of usenet's worst
spammers and trolls.

The fact you post with such a common first and last name is proof of this.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 11:44:15 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in , "jobriath.wurlitzer 111" wrote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ TROLLS: Ignorant, motor-mouthed, and cowardly +
+ punks (often mentally ill) that run around +
+ the Usenet posting (usually abusive) garbage +
+ under multiple aliases. Usenet vermin. +
+ +
+ +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Note: I don't read the posts of "Sam" or any of his
many aliases, nor any responses to them.]

AC

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
URLs of possible interest in my headers.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 13:00:58 von Sam

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.40) (was Re: Annoying Yahoo sen

am 17.11.2005 13:01:52 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-31469-1132228918-0004
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Usenet Beavis writes:

> On comp.mail.misc, in , "jobriath.wurlitzer 111" wrote:
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + +
> + TROLLS: See "Beavis" +
> + +
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok.

> [Note: it's not my fault that I'm a complete dumbass. I was dropped on my
> head as a child. See http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor for
> more information]

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.40)

This is a canonical list of questions that Beavis never answers. This FAQ is
posted on a semi-regular schedule, as circumstances warrant.

For more information on Beavis, see:

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

Although Beavis has been posting for a long time, he always remains silent
on the subjects enumerated below. His response, if any, usually consists of
replying to the parent post with a loud proclamation that his Usenet-reading
software runs a magical filter that automatically identifies anyone who's
making fun of him, and hides those offensive posts. For more information
see question #9 below.

============================================================ ================

1) If spammers avoid forging real E-mail addresses on spam, then where do
all these bounces everyone reports getting (for spam with their return
address was forged onto) come from?

2) If your Challenge-Response filter is so great, why do you still munge
when posting to Usenet?

3) Do you still believe that rsh is the best solution for remote access?
(http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6)

4) What is your evidence that everyone who disagrees with you, and thinks
that you're a moron, is a spammer?

5) How many different individuals do you believe really post to
comp.mail.misc? What is the evidence for your paranoid belief that everyone,
except you, who posts here is some unknown arch-nemesis of yours?

6) How many times, or how often, do you believe is necessary to announce
that you do not read someone's posts? What is your reason for making these
regularly-scheduled proclamations? Who do you believe is so interested in
keeping track of your Usenet-reading habits?

7) When was the last time you saw Bigfoot (http://tinyurl.com/23r3f)?

8) If your C-R system employs a spam filter so that it won't challenge spam,
then why does any of the mail that passes the filter, and is thusly presumed
not to be spam, need to be challenged?

9) You claim that the software you use to read Usenet magically identifies
any post that makes fun of you. In http://tinyurl.com/3swes you explain
that "What I get in my newsreader is a mock post with fake headers and no
body, except for the first parts of the Subject and From headers."

Since your headers indicate that you use slrn and, as far as anyone knows,
the stock slrn doesn't work that way, is this interesting patch to slrn
available for download anywhere?

10) You regularly post alleged logs of your procmail recipe autodeleting a
bunch of irrelevant mail that you've received. Why, and who exactly do you
believe is interested in your mail logs?

11) How exactly do you "enforce" an "order" to stay out of your mailbox,
supposedly (http://tinyurl.com/cs8jt)? Since you issue this "order" about
every week, or so, apparently nobody wants to follow it. What are you going
to do about it?

12) What's with your fascination with shit? (also http://tinyurl.com/cs8jt)?

13) You complain about some arch-nemesis of yours always posting forged
messages in your name. Can you come up with even a single URL, as an example
of what you're talking about?

14) You always complain about some mythical spammers that pretend to be
spamfighters (http://tinyurl.com/br4td). Who exactly are those people, and
can you post a copy of a spam that you supposedly received from them, that
proves that they're really spammers, and not spamfighters?

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-31469-1132228918-0004
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDfHE3x9p3GYHlUOIRAsX/AJwJcC5578orPSRXezZmKbZRPj+/3QCf bIAx
FSJ2u6HVrJCZ4RdIkajD5tQ=
=GNBT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-31469-1132228918-0004--

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 13:17:05 von jack.murphy

I aam not a SBC user and I experienced this about a few months ago on
Yahoo mail. It was very annoying to say the least. Thankfully, it
stopped happening to me.

What I think may be causing this is that if your friend receives a
dynamic IP address, the IP address that was recently assigned to his PC
may have been used for spamming.

I would suggest that he cycle his dhcp server to get a new IP address
assigned to his PC. Note that that this is not guaranteed to solve the
problem as the new IP address may have been used by spamming as well,
but at least it's worth a shot.

Jack
www.jkn.com - Email any web page to anyone

mig30m6@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hello
> I have a friend who, when sending email over the last month, has been
> required to verify the fact that they are a Yahoo account holder,
> before sending every message. For those non-Yahoo users, the
> verification consists of picking out letter and number combinations
> obscured by a textured background and typing what you see into a blank
> box. Upon verification, your message is then sent. Yahoo states that
> it uses this method of verification to prevent spamming by its users.
> I am aware of SBC Communication email users having to do the same thing
> due to the fact that Yahoo hosts their email. However, in my friend's
> case, she is not an SBC user and is not even based with the continental
> United States. The type of Yahoo account this person has is a 100%
> free version. I am also aware of several Yahoo users that do NOT get
> the sender verification of or at all. The sender verification screen
> will also appear when you send your first message after logging in so
> it's not like the Yahoo mail cookie has timed out. If a person left
> their accoount open for several hours I could understand but not in
> this case. Is anyone else with a free Yahoo account going through this
> bs? I'd also like to hear from any SBC users who might shed some light
> as your mail server is actually a Yahoo mail server. Thanks very much
> and if anyone has problems understanding this message, let me know
> because it is a bit of a mess.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 14:15:18 von ABC

Thanks for that excellent description of yourself.
However you forgot to mention your chronic
paraphilic interest in Bigfoot.

Alan= very common + Connor= very common =
SPAMMER AND TROLL AND GUTLESS HYPOCRITE.

GO SUCK THE SHIT FROM SAM'S ARSE!

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 19:18:55 von Mark Crispin

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Alan Connor wrote:
> but you seem to be
> describing a Challenge-Response system.

All right. I'll bite.

I fail to see what the original poster's problem has to do with
Challenge-Response.

The original poster describes a captcha facility in Yahoo mail to
establish that the user is a human rather than an automated process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

The original poster has a problem with being presented with a Captcha for
each message being sent instead of the first message in a session. I
agree with the original poster that it is pointless to perform a Captcha
more than once in a session.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 21:06:00 von Frank Slootweg

mig30m6@hotmail.com wrote:
[deleted]
> Is anyone else with a free Yahoo account going through this bs?
[deleted]

FWIW, I don't get a Captcha (see Sam's and Mark's responses as to what
that means) on my free Yahoo mail accounts.

Jack has a good point: Perhaps the (dynamic?) IP was recently used for
spamming or is otherwise on some blocklist/blacklist.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 17.11.2005 22:16:42 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in <437ce2a8$0$56522$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Frank Slootweg" wrote:

You and Mark can post anything you want for the benefit of the
trolls and spammers that constitute your audience.

What you may not do is send mail to my mailboxes or articles
to my newsreader.

Those priveleges have been revoked.

Yes. We know that creeps like you don't like Challenge-Responses.
You think that you have a right to send mail to anyone you
feel like, any time you feel like it, as if they were your own
mailboxes.

Which is why spammers and trolls like you.

But you are wrong.

I'm sure it pisses you sociopaths off when you have to knock on
someone's door in the real world, instead of just walking in.

Too bad.

Have a day. Somewhere else.

Don't like my mail filters?

Feel free to dine on solid human wastes.

AC

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.

ANN: The First Monthly Beavis Challenge (was Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification)

am 18.11.2005 00:49:36 von Sam

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 18.11.2005 00:54:12 von ABC

Alan Connor wrote:

>
> Feel free to dine on solid human wastes.
>
> AC
>
You're projecting again Anal Cunt.It must be hard for you being the
psycho off spring of a liaison between an alcoholically demented
Bigfoot and a syphilitic slag of a mother.
Was it Mommy dearest who turned you into a turd taster or maybe
Daddy bigfoot?

Challenge-Response Systemes (was: Re: ANN: The First Monthly Beavis Challenge <snip>)

am 18.11.2005 01:44:23 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in , "Sam" wrote:

I don't read the posts of "Sam" or any of his numerous
sockpuppets or any replies to said posts.

Been this way for years. A brief glance at one this feeb's
articles should make my reaons for this decision clear enough.

------------------------------------------------------------

Challenge-Response systems are the best way in the world to
keep creeps like this out of your mailboxes.

Spammers and trolls cannot beat them, which is why they become
more and more popular every day.

Google the subject. Just be aware of the fact that any spammer
or troll can put up websites full of lies as easily as they
can post lies on the Usenet.

Many major ISPs and MSPs offer C-R systems. Like Earthlink.

Want to clean the dung out of your mail downloads? This is
the way to do it. No muss and no fuss.

I use a different system for Usenet-generated mail, because
there are so many cretins like "Sam" here that just live
to try to cause trouble.

The fact that they always fail doesn't seem to penetrate their
enfeebled minds.

AC

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/elrav1/
Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 18.11.2005 01:44:23 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in , "jobriath.wurlitzer 111" wrote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ TROLLS: Ignorant, motor-mouthed, and cowardly +
+ punks (often mentally ill) that run around +
+ the Usenet posting (usually abusive) garbage +
+ under multiple aliases. Usenet vermin. +
+ +
+ +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AC

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/ I've never
read these trollshit sites, but if you are really bored:
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml
http://www.netcomhost.net/wordpress/victims-of-alan-connor/

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 18.11.2005 02:06:14 von Steve Baker

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:18:55 -0800, Mark Crispin
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Alan Connor wrote:
>> but you seem to be
>> describing a Challenge-Response system.

Showing off your reading skills again, eh, Alan?

>All right. I'll bite.
>
>I fail to see what the original poster's problem has to do with
>Challenge-Response.

A couple reasons for that come to mind:

1. You just don't know much about how email works. ;-)
2. You have an IQ over 60.

Hmm. It seems that you do know a little something about how email
works, so I guess I'm gonna have to go with #2.

Steve "Sam" Baker

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.40) (was Re: Challenge-Response

am 18.11.2005 02:10:35 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-5865-1132276238-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Usenet Beavis writes:

> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Sam" wrote:
>
>
> I don't read the posts of "Sam" or any of his numerous
> sockpuppets or any replies to said posts.

Of course you do, Beavis. You read every word of my every post.

> Been this way for years.

Yup.

> A brief glance at one this feeb's
> articles should make my reaons for this decision clear enough.

And that's why the masses are rising in your defense.

> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [ Beavisectomy ]

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.40)

This is a canonical list of questions that Beavis never answers. This FAQ is
posted on a semi-regular schedule, as circumstances warrant.

For more information on Beavis, see:

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

Although Beavis has been posting for a long time, he always remains silent
on the subjects enumerated below. His response, if any, usually consists of
replying to the parent post with a loud proclamation that his Usenet-reading
software runs a magical filter that automatically identifies anyone who's
making fun of him, and hides those offensive posts. For more information
see question #9 below.

============================================================ ================

1) If spammers avoid forging real E-mail addresses on spam, then where do
all these bounces everyone reports getting (for spam with their return
address was forged onto) come from?

2) If your Challenge-Response filter is so great, why do you still munge
when posting to Usenet?

3) Do you still believe that rsh is the best solution for remote access?
(http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6)

4) What is your evidence that everyone who disagrees with you, and thinks
that you're a moron, is a spammer?

5) How many different individuals do you believe really post to
comp.mail.misc? What is the evidence for your paranoid belief that everyone,
except you, who posts here is some unknown arch-nemesis of yours?

6) How many times, or how often, do you believe is necessary to announce
that you do not read someone's posts? What is your reason for making these
regularly-scheduled proclamations? Who do you believe is so interested in
keeping track of your Usenet-reading habits?

7) When was the last time you saw Bigfoot (http://tinyurl.com/23r3f)?

8) If your C-R system employs a spam filter so that it won't challenge spam,
then why does any of the mail that passes the filter, and is thusly presumed
not to be spam, need to be challenged?

9) You claim that the software you use to read Usenet magically identifies
any post that makes fun of you. In http://tinyurl.com/3swes you explain
that "What I get in my newsreader is a mock post with fake headers and no
body, except for the first parts of the Subject and From headers."

Since your headers indicate that you use slrn and, as far as anyone knows,
the stock slrn doesn't work that way, is this interesting patch to slrn
available for download anywhere?

10) You regularly post alleged logs of your procmail recipe autodeleting a
bunch of irrelevant mail that you've received. Why, and who exactly do you
believe is interested in your mail logs?

11) How exactly do you "enforce" an "order" to stay out of your mailbox,
supposedly (http://tinyurl.com/cs8jt)? Since you issue this "order" about
every week, or so, apparently nobody wants to follow it. What are you going
to do about it?

12) What's with your fascination with shit? (also http://tinyurl.com/cs8jt)?

13) You complain about some arch-nemesis of yours always posting forged
messages in your name. Can you come up with even a single URL, as an example
of what you're talking about?

14) You always complain about some mythical spammers that pretend to be
spamfighters (http://tinyurl.com/br4td). Who exactly are those people, and
can you post a copy of a spam that you supposedly received from them, that
proves that they're really spammers, and not spamfighters?

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-5865-1132276238-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDfSoOx9p3GYHlUOIRAowtAJ4u6cPuFC1humaQzK7Yi+o1qlOgtwCc DPNx
ZjJOnhmx27bFR9np6YPd92Q=
=UhE6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-5865-1132276238-0001--

Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 18.11.2005 07:53:55 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in , "Sam" wrote:

Here's the basics of how a C-R system works:

Someone sends you a mail.

It encounters Stage I, which is the Passlist. If the return
address (and/or other headers) match an entry in your Passlist,
it is sent directly to the proper mailbox.

If it isn't a Passlisted mail, it encounters Stage II, which is a
broadly-tuned conventional Spamfilter and Blocklist.

Here, obvious spam and blocklisted addresses/domains are just
dumped.

If the mail makes it past Stage II, (and _very_ few do), then
Stage III sends a small auto-response to the given return
address.

It has "Re: " on the Subject line and does
_not_ include the body of the mail, which is quarantined until
the Challenge is Responded to. (if it isn't returned within a
fixed period, it is silently dumped)

The Challenge is a simple note that asks the recipient to hit
Reply and paste a password included in the note on the Subject
line and send it off.

In some cases, the Challenge may include a link to a webpage
where the recipient is asked to type a password into a simple
webform. Earthlink and Yahoo use this approach.

Contrary to the lies that spammers and trolls love to publish, in
their desperate attempts to get people to decide not to use a C/R
System (because they can't beat them), spammers go out of their
way to avoid using return addresses that might belong to people
or businesses or non-profit orgs, because this REALLY pisses
people off and brings serious heat down on them.

A new contactee only has to return ONE Challenge in a lifetime
and it takes about 5 seconds, and one of the best things about
a C/R system is that you don't have to be a computer pro to
use one and don't have to spend hours a week keeping it updated
or pay someone else to do it for you.

Auto-Responses of many kinds have been in common use for
decades,and are perfectly acceptable on the Internet. Here's one
of the relevant RFCs:

RFC 3834: Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic
Mail

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3834.html

You will often encounter a de facto Challenge-Response system
when you join a web forum or subscribe to a mailing list: You
sign up, they send you a mail at the address you gave them,
(the Challenge) and if you don't return it, your attempt to
join/subscribe will fail.

Works like a charm, and it is one of the main reasons that
well-run web forums and mailing lists are spam and troll free for
the most part.

------------------------------------------------------------ --

This is an informational posting. I will not be reading any
responses to it. All the trolls and spammers who will be posting
lies while pretending to be trollmail and spam haters and
fighters will have to talk to each other. They bore me to tears.

Have a good time, jerks. Just stay out of my mailboxes and
newsreader. That's an order, not a request, and because you
are the toilet scrubbers of the IT world, I can enforce it
effortlessly.

Note: I do not use a C-R system for my Usenet-generated mail,
because the stupid trolls just can't get it through their head
that they can't beat a C-R system, and just end up generating
useless traffic.

The system I use for the effing trolls has REALLY shut the morons
down but good, yet no legitimate contactee has any problem
getting through to me. Check it out.

AC

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html - I've never
read these trollshit sites, but if you are really bored:
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml
http://www.netcomhost.net/wordpress/victims-of-alan-connor/

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 18.11.2005 08:28:16 von dhodgin1661

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:53:55 -0500, Alan Connor wrote:

> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Sam" wrote:

Hey, you slipped past my usenet killfile.

Why are you posting via dialup-4.242.3.164.Dial1.Seattle1.Level3.net?

Using trojaned boxes to bypass filters?

Plonk again!

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to rogers.com to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

Re: Challenge-Response Systems

am 18.11.2005 11:47:36 von spike1

David W. Hodgins did eloquently scribble:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:53:55 -0500, Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Sam" wrote:
>
> Hey, you slipped past my usenet killfile.
>
> Why are you posting via dialup-4.242.3.164.Dial1.Seattle1.Level3.net?
>
> Using trojaned boxes to bypass filters?
>
> Plonk again!
>

He's not worth plonking...
Some of the shit he comes out with is just too entertainingly moronic.
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 18.11.2005 14:47:04 von Mark Ferguson

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:53:55 GMT, Alan Connor
wrote:

>From: Alan Connor

Must not be working the way you expected.

--
Mark Ferguson
Help the katrina victims
http://www.green-ribbon.org

Re: Challenge-Response Systems

am 18.11.2005 18:22:53 von Quaestor

Alan Connor wrote:

>On comp.mail.misc, in , "Sam" wrote:
>
>
>Here's the basics of how a C-R system works:
>
>

spam is sent to victim 1, who then passes it on autotamically to victim 2.

There will be a test. And losers like this guy fail it all the time.

--
Godwin is a net-nazi

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 18.11.2005 21:50:50 von Frank Slootweg

Alan Connor wrote:
> On comp.mail.misc, in <437ce2a8$0$56522$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Frank Slootweg" wrote:
>

So you read [1] it with Google Groups, big fscking deal!

> You and Mark

I am honored to be mentioned together with Mark (C. that is). Thank
you.

> creeps ... spammers and trolls ... sociopaths

Can you please put me back in the same category as the famous "general
asshole"? I really miss his company.

[1] You're getting sloppy! This time you blew it! You *did* read the
body of my article. If you didn't, you *couldn't* have known that I
referred to Mark('s posting), because my response was a direct response
to the base article. So normally you lie about not downloading (and
hence not reading) bodies, but we can not prove it. This time we can and
did.

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 18.11.2005 22:55:19 von sethb

In article ,
Alan Connor wrote:

>If the mail makes it past Stage II, (and _very_ few do), then
>Stage III sends a small auto-response to the given return
>address.

That is, C-R spams another victim.

You can tell how well Alan's C-R system works by the way he proudly
announces his email address to the world.

Seth

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 00:07:52 von SneakyP

Alan Connor wrote:
> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Sam" wrote:
>

>
> The system I use for the effing trolls has REALLY shut the morons
> down but good, yet no legitimate contactee has any problem
> getting through to me. Check it out.
>
> AC
>
>
You forgot your sig:
moron

Reason to respond to c/r
#1. It helps deliver crap to idiot user of c/r

Thanks AC, I'll approve all spam that you want to accept with an
enthusiastic "yes".

That will promote #2
#2. It helps educate said idiot user of c/r to reconsider use of c/r.

Unfortunately for dimwit, the ones who report abuse of his c/r messages
will probably get his account termed for backscatter abuse, thusly
ending his endless stream of c/r messages to unrelated parties that
were "from:" forged in his original spam messages. Dimwit probably
learned that filtering in the second stage cut down drastically on his
"backscatter c/r", and hence the return complaints to his ISP. He
didn't advertize that until recently AFAIK. Unfortunately for idiot,
there are still sending systems that are not blocklisted, and he still
insists on bouncing c/r messages to unrelated third parties.

There are always the gullible who will fall for this system and dont
see a problem with c/r. Consider:
What if the forged "from:" is a party that ALWAYS approves the
messages?
What if the forged from header is the same as the To: header?
What if your account gets termed for sending spam c/r messages?

But dimwit always pushes his abuse on others because "it is not spam",
or
"spam is that which I dont do".

moron

--
SneakyP
not an admin, security, programmer,, etc... just one of a million
complainants. I guess I'm one in a million! ;)

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 01:27:33 von Sam

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 01:28:10 von Sam

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 02:29:59 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in , "Seth Breidbart" wrote:

Seth Breidbart. One of the worst scumbags on the Internet.

He claims to be the quintessential spam fighter and hater, but
whenever the subject of Challenge-Response systems, which are the
single most effective anti-spam tool in existence, comes up, he
has nothing but bad things to say about them, almost all of which
are malicious lies.

You see, Seth isn't really against spam at all. He's against
any spam that he and his buddies and his corporate sponsors
and _their_ buddies, didn't originate.

He doesn't consider _that_ unsolicited bulk email to be spam,
but rather Legitimate Commercial Mail.

hehe

If people use the dated and demonstrably ineffective spam filters
that he advocates, then he and his buddies can beat them.

But they can't beat a C-R system.

So naturally, he must ally himself with trolls and "bad" spammers(his competetition, in reality) to fight the Evil Scourge of
Challenge Response Systems.

The fact that one of the leading ISPs on the planet has offered
C/R systems to all of its clients for years doesn't slow him down
for a second.

Have fun, Seth. Run your lying, corrupt mouth until the cows
come home.

Just stay out of my mailboxes.

And those of the 10's of thousands of people, businesses, and
non-profit organizations that use Challenge-Response systems.

Done.

And consider looking for honest work.

_After_ you kiss my butt for the hundredth time.

You'll notice that I have killscored you.

Heard all your lies too many times.

They are boring.

And impotent.

Obviously.

Why don't you tell everyone why many of the major ISPs and MSPs
won't even accept mail from you anymore?

Why don't you tell them who put up the 'pearlgates' Alan Connor
hate site below, you dickless creep.

AC

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/ I've never
read these trollshit sites, but if you are really bored:
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml
http://www.netcomhost.net/wordpress/victims-of-alan-connor/

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 02:57:34 von Mark Ferguson

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:29:59 GMT, Alan Connor
wrote:

>From: Alan Connor

Nuff said.

--
Mark Ferguson
Help the katrina victims
http://www.green-ribbon.org

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 19.11.2005 03:36:01 von SneakyP

mig30m6@hotmail.com wrote:
>.... Yahoo states that
> it uses this method of verification to prevent spamming by its users.

That is because the automation of sending email by free email accounts
became trivially easy to do by computers. The pictograph prevents
automation by actually having someone looking at the picture to type in
the equivalent letters, numbers in a field and prevents any computer
from doing it on its own.
That presents a real problem to spammers now because it severely
hampers their sending rate. Speculating the success rate of spam, a
spammer must send out many millions of spam messages to get any
response or even a sale. By the time a spam run is about a few minutes
old, some blocklists catch it (yes, some bl's are that quick - some
have planted spamtraps and used other techniques). So it is very
undesirable to send out a few spams per minute as it would be
practically nil return and more likely to trigger more blocklists to
add the sender's IP. Sounds like a good concept Yahoo! is trying.
Making it a hassle to send spam is something more providers should do,
particularly the free email acount providers.

Ignore the Challenge/Response Idiot Alan Connor, google and you will
see why. Apparently he has confused your question with his answer to
filtering out spam on the receiving end and not on the SENDING side.

Since this AC c/r dribble was crossposted to news.admin.net-abuse.email
from this thread after your post, I am reposting here as it was
originally here only. Should the dolt continue, add a followup to
alt.usenet.kooks as needed. They love the idiot in that group.

SneakyP
not an admin, security, programmer,, etc... just one of a million
complainants. I guess I'm one in a million! ;)

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 03:51:39 von sethb

In article ,
Alan the liar Connor wrote:

(He started by claiming, in his previous posting,
"This is an informational posting. I will not be reading any
responses to it.")

>On comp.mail.misc, in , "Seth Breidbart" wrote:
>

Yeah, right.

>Seth Breidbart. One of the worst scumbags on the Internet.

I am rather bad at being a scumbag. Unlike Alan Connor, for instance,
who's one of the _best_ scumbags on the Internet.

>He claims to be the quintessential spam fighter and hater, but
>whenever the subject of Challenge-Response systems, which are the
>single most effective anti-spam tool in existence,

if you include "anti-spam tools" that themselves emit spam

> comes up, he
>has nothing but bad things to say about them, almost all of which
>are malicious lies.

So even Alan Connor admits that some of the things I write against C-R
are true.

>You see, Seth isn't really against spam at all. He's against
>any spam that he and his buddies and his corporate sponsors
>and _their_ buddies, didn't originate.

Which "corporate sponsors" are those? Somebody hasn't been paying
me. (Come to think of it, with the exception of my employer who
doesn't send email, _everybody_ hasn't been paying me.)

>He doesn't consider _that_ unsolicited bulk email to be spam,

Since there's none of it, it doesn't matter what it's considered. But
facts never bothered Alan "I forward my spam to random victims" Connor.

>If people use the dated and demonstrably ineffective spam filters
>that he advocates, then he and his buddies can beat them.

I don't spam, nor have any buddies who do. Alan Connor is just upset
that those "ineffective" spam filters I advocate blow his C-R
backscatter away.

>But they can't beat a C-R system.

Aside from the people who _always_ replay, on the grounds that a
spam-emitter using C-R _deserves_ to get the spam.

>So naturally, he must ally himself with trolls and "bad" spammers(his
>competetition, in reality) to fight the Evil Scourge of Challenge
>Response Systems.

My competition in what? Does Alan Connor even know what industry I
work in? (Hint: it isn't a secret.)

>The fact that one of the leading ISPs on the planet has offered
>C/R systems to all of its clients for years doesn't slow him down
>for a second.

So why doesn't Alan Connor use it? Oh, right, _his_ system was turned
off when his ISP got too many complaints about his outgoing spam.

>Have fun, Seth. Run your lying, corrupt mouth until the cows
>come home.
>
>Just stay out of my mailboxes.

I don't want in to your mailbox, especially the ones that are so well
protected by your C-R outspamming system that you're afraid to post
using it.

>And those of the 10's of thousands of people, businesses, and
>non-profit organizations that use Challenge-Response systems.

Name 10. Oh, right. You can't.

>And consider looking for honest work.

I have honest work. Do you?

>_After_ you kiss my butt for the hundredth time.

Only 100 to go. That number isn't going to change.

>You'll notice that I have killscored you.

You sure reply to me a lot for that.

>Heard all your lies too many times.

Give three examples.

>They are boring.
>
>And impotent.

No, that's your problem.

>Why don't you tell everyone why many of the major ISPs and MSPs
>won't even accept mail from you anymore?

Name three. Earthlink, AOL, outblaze, and gmail all accept email from
me. So just who do you have in mind, liar?

>Why don't you tell them who put up the 'pearlgates' Alan Connor
>hate site below,

>http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

I don't know. I've never even looked at it.

But now that I have, it's somewhat amusing.

As to who wrote it, if you could read, you might see the copyright
notice on it, from Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. I'd guess that's who
wrote it.

> you dickless creep.

Again, that's your problem, and probably explains the one you alluded
to above.

Seth

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 19.11.2005 03:52:17 von SneakyP

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
> > On comp.mail.misc, in <437ce2a8$0$56522$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Frank Slootweg" wrote:
> >
>
> So you read [1] it with Google Groups, big fscking deal!
>
> > You and Mark
>
> I am honored to be mentioned together with Mark (C. that is). Thank
> you.
>
> > creeps ... spammers and trolls ... sociopaths
>
> Can you please put me back in the same category as the famous "general
> asshole"? I really miss his company.
>
> [1] You're getting sloppy! This time you blew it! You *did* read the
> body of my article. If you didn't, you *couldn't* have known that I
> referred to Mark('s posting), because my response was a direct response
> to the base article. So normally you lie about not downloading (and
> hence not reading) bodies, but we can not prove it. This time we can and
> did.

In addition to [1], the dolt also read this:
Message-ID:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.misc/msg/6b24f435eb ec6dce?dmode=source

A message which he claims immediately following the original AC spoof
that he did not "download" it, but obviously he did *read* it -
otherwise he would never have responded. Will the idiocy ever end?

I've had enough fun for now.
AC - Stop your kookish posting in nanae. Nobody who is part of that
group is as st00pid as you.

SneakyP
not an admin, security, programmer,, etc... just one of a million
complainants. I guess I'm one in a million! ;)

Re: Challenge-Response Systems

am 19.11.2005 03:59:50 von Spammer Eater

SneakyP wrote:

> Unfortunately for dimwit, the ones who report abuse of his c/r messages
> will probably get his account termed for backscatter abuse, thusly
> ending his endless stream of c/r messages to unrelated parties that
> were "from:" forged in his original spam messages. Dimwit probably
> learned that filtering in the second stage cut down drastically on his
> "backscatter c/r", and hence the return complaints to his ISP. He
> didn't advertize that until recently AFAIK. Unfortunately for idiot,
> there are still sending systems that are not blocklisted, and he still
> insists on bouncing c/r messages to unrelated third parties.

I can tell you that I treat c/r abuse reports they same as I treat SPAM
reports. It is especially great when the From address in the spam was a
mail trap (most commonly MCI it seems) and thus, the c/r gets auto-reported.

SE

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 09:09:05 von af380

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Alan Connor wrote:

> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Seth Breidbart" wrote:
>
>
> Seth Breidbart. One of the worst scumbags on the Internet.
>
> He claims to be the quintessential spam fighter and hater, but
> whenever the subject of Challenge-Response systems, which are the
> single most effective anti-spam tool in existence, comes up, he
> has nothing but bad things to say about them, almost all of which
> are malicious lies.

OK, what would your system do with a message that contained this?:

ÕâÒ»¸ö¿ÉÄÜµÄÏòÌôÕ½·´Ó¦:

------------------------------------------------------------ -------

ÕâÊÇÒ»¸ö¼ÆËã»úÔì³öµÄ·´Ó¦

------------------------------------------------------------ -------

ÎÊºò....

ÄúµÄµØÖ·ÊÇÎ´ÖªµÄ¶ÔÕâ¸ö½ÚÄ¿¡£
ÇëÐèÒªÆ¬¿ÌºËÊµ
ÓÉÕæÕýµÄÈËÊ¹ÓÃ
ÄÇÏëÒªÁªÂçÓëÎÒ, ºÍ
Ã»ÓÐÄ³Ð©·¸¹æÍÆÏúÕßµÄ¼ÆËã»ú¡£

ÃüÖÐ»Ø¸´, ½¬ºý

<¶ÀÌØµÄÃÜÂëÕâÀï>

ÈÎºÎµØ·½ÔÚ¸½ÊôµÄÏß, ºÍËÍËü¡£

[ÕâÊÇÒ»¼þÒ»´ÎÐÔÊÂ]

¸ÐÐ»ÄúµÄÄÍÐÄ,

°¢Â×¡¤¿µÄÉ¡£

------------------------------------------------------------ -------

Èç¹ûÕâ²»·µ»ØÔÚ72 ¸öÐ¡Ê±Ö®ÄÚ, ´¥·¢ËüµÄÓÊ¼þ½«ÓÉelrav1 É¾³ý, Î´¿´¼û,
ËÍËüµ½ÄúµÄ½ÚÄ¿¡£

------------------------------------------------------------ -------

.... and why?

(Va pnfr bguref ner jbaqrevat, gung'f n genafyngvba bs Nyyna Pbaabe'f
bja punyyratr zrffntr vagb Puvarfr.)

--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
"> Is there anything Spamazon DOESN'T sell?
Clues. The market's too small to justify the effort."
-- Stuart Lamble in the scary devil monastery, Fri, 13 May 2005

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 19.11.2005 09:32:14 von DevilsPGD

In message

"Norman L. DeForest" wrote:

>
>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Seth Breidbart" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Seth Breidbart. One of the worst scumbags on the Internet.
>>
>> He claims to be the quintessential spam fighter and hater, but
>> whenever the subject of Challenge-Response systems, which are the
>> single most effective anti-spam tool in existence, comes up, he
>> has nothing but bad things to say about them, almost all of which
>> are malicious lies.
>
>OK, what would your system do with a message that contained this?:
>

>... and why?
>
>(Va pnfr bguref ner jbaqrevat, gung'f n genafyngvba bs Nyyna Pbaabe'f
>bja punyyratr zrffntr vagb Puvarfr.)

I'd do the same thing I do with most of the incoherent mail I receive,
report them as unsolicited.

Same goes for unsolicited challenges, although if I can figure them out
I do take the time to respond -- Not because I want the spam to go to
the recipient, that would be fighting abuse with abuse. Rather, I
confirm it so that I can, if so choose, email that user in the future.
Most C/R systems only challenge an address once, which means that if I
don't answer challenges, I'm limiting my future correspondence.

The odds that I'd actually want to correspond with someone stupid enough
to run C/R are reasonably low, but why restrict myself?

--
Boom. Boom boom boom. Boom boom. BOOM. Have a nice day.
-- Susan Ivanova, B5

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 19.11.2005 16:59:08 von Frank Slootweg

48umofa02@sneakemail.com wrote:
>
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Connor wrote:
> > > On comp.mail.misc, in <437ce2a8$0$56522$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Frank Slootweg" wrote:
> > >
> >
> > So you read [1] it with Google Groups, big fscking deal!
> >
> > > You and Mark
> >
> > I am honored to be mentioned together with Mark (C. that is). Thank
> > you.
> >
> > > creeps ... spammers and trolls ... sociopaths
> >
> > Can you please put me back in the same category as the famous "general
> > asshole"? I really miss his company.
> >
> > [1] You're getting sloppy! This time you blew it! You *did* read the
> > body of my article. If you didn't, you *couldn't* have known that I
> > referred to Mark('s posting), because my response was a direct response
> > to the base article. So normally you lie about not downloading (and
> > hence not reading) bodies, but we can not prove it. This time we can and
> > did.
>
> In addition to [1], the dolt also read this:
> Message-ID:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.misc/msg/6b24f435eb ec6dce?dmode=source
>
> A message which he claims immediately following the original AC spoof
> that he did not "download" it, but obviously he did *read* it -
> otherwise he would never have responded. Will the idiocy ever end?

Sorry, but no cigar! He claims he does not download (and hence not
read) *bodies* of articles. He does *not* claim that he does not read
*headers*, nor does he claim that he does not *respond* to them
(headers). Actually he often refers to information in the headers.

So to catch him lying, you have to *prove* (not *think*) that he
responded to information in the *body* of an article which he claims not
to have downloaded(/read) *and* that that information was not available
in articles which he has not claimed to have not read. (Yes, all those
"not"s are really needed! :-))

IMO, my example above fullfills these requirements. Yours does not.

[deleted]

> SneakyP

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 19.11.2005 17:33:47 von SneakyP

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 48umofa02@sneakemail.com wrote:
> >
> > Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > > Alan Connor wrote:
> > > > On comp.mail.misc, in <437ce2a8$0$56522$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Frank Slootweg" wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you read [1] it with Google Groups, big fscking deal!
> > >
> > > > You and Mark
> > >
> > > I am honored to be mentioned together with Mark (C. that is). Thank
> > > you.
> > >
> > > > creeps ... spammers and trolls ... sociopaths
> > >
> > > Can you please put me back in the same category as the famous "general
> > > asshole"? I really miss his company.
> > >
> > > [1] You're getting sloppy! This time you blew it! You *did* read the
> > > body of my article. If you didn't, you *couldn't* have known that I
> > > referred to Mark('s posting), because my response was a direct response
> > > to the base article. So normally you lie about not downloading (and
> > > hence not reading) bodies, but we can not prove it. This time we can and
> > > did.
> >
> > In addition to [1], the dolt also read this:
> > Message-ID:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.misc/msg/6b24f435eb ec6dce?dmode=source
> >
> > A message which he claims immediately following the original AC spoof
> > that he did not "download" it, but obviously he did *read* it -
> > otherwise he would never have responded. Will the idiocy ever end?
>
> Sorry, but no cigar! He claims he does not download (and hence not
> read) *bodies* of articles. He does *not* claim that he does not read
> *headers*, nor does he claim that he does not *respond* to them
> (headers). Actually he often refers to information in the headers.
>
> So to catch him lying, you have to *prove* (not *think*) that he
> responded to information in the *body* of an article which he claims not
> to have downloaded(/read) *and* that that information was not available
> in articles which he has not claimed to have not read. (Yes, all those
> "not"s are really needed! :-))
>
> IMO, my example above fullfills these requirements. Yours does not.
>
Not necessarily.
The dolt saw the headers of the ones who replied. He picked yours and
Marks, probably because those are the ones that he has come to
associate with replies he saw in the past in the headers. So, there's
still no proof that AC actually read your post.

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 19.11.2005 18:31:39 von Mark Crispin

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, SneakyP wrote:
> The dolt saw the headers of the ones who replied. He picked yours and
> Marks, probably because those are the ones that he has come to
> associate with replies he saw in the past in the headers. So, there's
> still no proof that AC actually read your post.

He reads everything; he need to do so in order to cherry-pick technical
information that would fill the gaps in his knowledge.

He now knows, for example, what a Captcha is.

Although a caged lunatic's response to being poked with sticks is
entertaining in a cruel warped way, it's gone on way too long. What goes
on in alt.* or n.a.n-a.e is not my concern. However, I would like to see
comp.mail.misc take a higher tone.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Re: Challenge-Response Systems (was: FAQ: Canonical list <snip>)

am 20.11.2005 20:21:58 von bonomi

In article ,
Alan Connor wrote:
>On comp.mail.misc, in , "Seth Breidbart" wrote:
>
>
>Seth Breidbart. One of the worst scumbags on the Internet.
>
>He claims to be the quintessential spam fighter and hater, but
>whenever the subject of Challenge-Response systems, which are the
>single most effective anti-spam tool in existence, comes up, he
>has nothing but bad things to say about them, almost all of which
>are malicious lies.

Your challenge-response system is so effective you can't post don't dare
post using your real address. Strange isn't it, that the foremost
advocate of C/R doesn't trust it to work for _him_?

[[.. munch ..]]
>
>But they can't beat a C-R system.

But, apparently,, *your* C-R system can't stand up to the stress of your
posting with you real e-mail address.

Definitely a ringing endorsement for the approach. *NOT*!!!

Re: Annoying Yahoo sender verification

am 27.11.2005 08:49:10 von unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)