<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Predictive blacklisting with DShield</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hackaday.com/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hackaday.com/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/</link>
	<description>Fresh hacks every day</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:22:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: thomas</title>
		<link>http://hackaday.com/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/comment-page-1/#comment-39547</link>
		<dc:creator>thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hackaday.iheartcashews.com:8181/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/#comment-39547</guid>
		<description>@2: i think that&#039;s the point :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@2: i think that&#8217;s the point :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eliot</title>
		<link>http://hackaday.com/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/comment-page-1/#comment-39546</link>
		<dc:creator>Eliot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:41:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hackaday.iheartcashews.com:8181/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/#comment-39546</guid>
		<description>DShield doesn&#039;t claim to eradicate slashdot trolls either&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DShield doesn&#8217;t claim to eradicate slashdot trolls either</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://hackaday.com/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/comment-page-1/#comment-39545</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hackaday.iheartcashews.com:8181/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/#comment-39545</guid>
		<description>Is comment 1 for this post? Maybe I missed something in the article or didn&#039;t understand it, but that comment makes no sense to me, perhaps it is spam.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is comment 1 for this post? Maybe I missed something in the article or didn&#8217;t understand it, but that comment makes no sense to me, perhaps it is spam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eighty Seven</title>
		<link>http://hackaday.com/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/comment-page-1/#comment-39544</link>
		<dc:creator>Eighty Seven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:08:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hackaday.iheartcashews.com:8181/2008/07/25/predictive-blacklisting-with-dshield/#comment-39544</guid>
		<description>Your post advocates a&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won&#039;t work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses&lt;br&gt;( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected&lt;br&gt;( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money&lt;br&gt;( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks&lt;br&gt;(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we&#039;ll be stuck with it&lt;br&gt;(x) Users of email will not put up with it&lt;br&gt;( ) Microsoft will not put up with it&lt;br&gt;( ) The police will not put up with it&lt;br&gt;(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers&lt;br&gt;(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once&lt;br&gt;( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers&lt;br&gt;( ) Spammers don&#039;t care about invalid addresses in their lists&lt;br&gt;( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else&#039;s career or business&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Specifically, your plan fails to account for&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it&lt;br&gt;(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email&lt;br&gt;( ) Open relays in foreign countries&lt;br&gt;( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses&lt;br&gt;( ) Asshats&lt;br&gt;( ) Jurisdictional problems&lt;br&gt;( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes&lt;br&gt;( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money&lt;br&gt;(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP&lt;br&gt;(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack&lt;br&gt;(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email&lt;br&gt;(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes&lt;br&gt;( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches&lt;br&gt;( ) Extreme profitability of spam&lt;br&gt;(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft&lt;br&gt;( ) Technically illiterate politicians&lt;br&gt;( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers&lt;br&gt;( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves&lt;br&gt;( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering&lt;br&gt;( ) Outlook&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;and the following philosophical objections may also apply:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical&lt;br&gt;( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable&lt;br&gt;( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation&lt;br&gt;( ) Blacklists suck&lt;br&gt;( ) Whitelists suck&lt;br&gt;( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored&lt;br&gt;( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud&lt;br&gt;( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks&lt;br&gt;(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually&lt;br&gt;( ) Sending email should be free&lt;br&gt;( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?&lt;br&gt;( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses&lt;br&gt;( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem&lt;br&gt;( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome&lt;br&gt;( ) I don&#039;t want the government reading my email&lt;br&gt;( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Furthermore, this is what I think about you:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(x) Sorry dude, but I don&#039;t think it would work.&lt;br&gt;( ) This is a stupid idea, and you&#039;re a stupid person for suggesting it.&lt;br&gt;( ) Nice try, assh0le! I&#039;m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your post advocates a</p>
<p>(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p>
<p>approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won&#8217;t work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)</p>
<p>( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br />( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br />( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br />( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br />(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we&#8217;ll be stuck with it<br />(x) Users of email will not put up with it<br />( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br />( ) The police will not put up with it<br />(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br />(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br />( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br />( ) Spammers don&#8217;t care about invalid addresses in their lists<br />( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else&#8217;s career or business</p>
<p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p>
<p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br />(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br />( ) Open relays in foreign countries<br />( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br />( ) Asshats<br />( ) Jurisdictional problems<br />( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br />( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br />(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br />(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br />(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br />(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br />( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br />( ) Extreme profitability of spam<br />(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br />( ) Technically illiterate politicians<br />( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br />( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br />( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br />( ) Outlook</p>
<p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p>
<p>(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<br />( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br />( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br />( ) Blacklists suck<br />( ) Whitelists suck<br />( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored<br />( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br />( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br />(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br />( ) Sending email should be free<br />( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br />( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br />( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br />( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br />( ) I don&#8217;t want the government reading my email<br />( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p>
<p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:</p>
<p>(x) Sorry dude, but I don&#8217;t think it would work.<br />( ) This is a stupid idea, and you&#8217;re a stupid person for suggesting it.<br />( ) Nice try, assh0le! I&#8217;m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
