[Nottingham] email and spam

[Martin]

Fluf,

> Dear Newbies:
> 
> Welcome to the list.
[---]
> So please don't let any of our guff put you off too much.

Good comment :-)


> (deal with the top posting, Martin, I'm not quite finished yet --> )

OOoooer, on-list or over a few beers? Will Andy be jealous??


[---]
> If we've already been marked as too lazy to snip out fluff in our e-mail
> replies, do you really think we're going to go to the trouble to set up
> e-mail encryption?  Honestly...

Very true. Perhaps that is why spam is so profitable at everyone else's
expense.


[---]
> How so?  If they're snooping anyway, what's stopping them from grabbing
> your public key and encrypting a nice advertizment for some choice
> medication for you?  Or would you just never accept any mail from

That requires /directed/ mail rather than random spewings. That will
make it slightly more costly to send the spam and so reduce it slightly.

It would stop 'bounces' getting usefully abused to multiply up the spam.

It would stop spam forgery in your name.


> sources who don't sign in return with a public key that is already known
> to you?...

Unfortunately, people are moving to only accepting mail from those
already whitelisted by them. Challenge-Response anyone...?

(I think we've already had the extended discussions on both sides on
that one. Ugly. But "no other way" for some?)


> And anwyay, how would it stop e-mail getting lost?

It won't, but it will stop your lost mail being read by anyone else
unintended. Much better than the very weak disclaimers "please do not
read if not for you" pseudo-legal mail sigs.


[---]
> -Stef (Newbie of many years)

:-)

Hey! I'm still learning also!


Cheers,
Martin

-- 
----------------
Martin Lomas
martin at ml1.co.uk
----------------