131–140 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tech industry’s ‘reenvisioning’ of a free/cheap older, but universal, standard is usually to replace it with something expensive, proprietary, and limited in scope.
My hope is that it would be an open and free standard instead of some of the usual bullshit vendor lock in
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reckon it’s just a numbers game. Gmail will every now and then let absolutely ridiculous emails through the spam filter. Badly spelled, bogus URLs, with $$$$ all over the place and All CAPS and just so clearly to any human a phishing attempt or just general scumminess and gmail takes a look at it and says “yup everything seems legit here. On to the inbox!”
Google has to intentionally inbox a tiny fraction of spam, otherwise they'll never get corrective feedback on false positives, because basically nobody looks in their spam folder. Also, they have to permit a teensy fraction of stuff that would normally be temp-failed at SMTP time, for the same reason: otherwise it would be impossible for address and network reputation to improve. So sometimes if you see something com…
> These emails are so bad and there is almost no chance of them finding their way through a spam filter, why are people still sending them? Most likely because the cost to send per email is so low as to be essentially free. As well, there may be some amount of 'Nigerian email' issue here. I've heard it said that the "Nigerian prince with 65M needs help moving money to your country" emails are so poorly worded on purp…
I'd pay for a service that responds to every spam email with a GPT-generated conversation, with the goal of wasting more of their resources than yours. Maybe you could train it on a central database that keeps track of which conversations get the most consecutive replies from scammers. You might not even need GPT. Maybe just the act of responding with a reasonable amount of text would create a large filtering burden…
https://devpost.com/software/test-7gzse1
It hooked into your email client, identified scams in a very mediocre way, and then sent back a autogenerated (not GPT-3 response).
The big problem is privacy. I am not sure how to effectively solve that one. Why I did not win, lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also snail mail. And on the radio. And billboards in town or at the least stapled to telephone poles. I've seen scams on banners dragged by airplanes.
“But not in dreams.”
Check your spam box. There's probably one saying "we have control of your camera and we've seen you playing with yourself". There's usually a bitcoin address to send a few hundred bucks to so they don't "send all your contacts the video". Give it a few days and go look at the address in a Blockchain explorer. There's usually 2 or 3 transactions. I guess you send 10m emails, you get lucky a handful of times. Spam work…
No matter how secure I make my PCs and network, they still are constantly gaining control of my webcam and watching me play with myself. I don't know how they are able to see through the lens cover, but I don't want the video getting out so I just pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, a lot of people I suspect still have old email software (Outlook Express anyone?) which might not even have spam filters set up. It is sad because I think it isn't just gullible people generally, but those who did not grow up with computers and won't understand that "This is your bank informing you of a security breach" is bogus are unfairly hit. Other thing is that the cost of sending massive numbers of emails…
Who uses spam filtering in their email client anymore? That's done at the server level.
Also FWIW, people to whom I send email regularly tell me that their email systems mis-classify my emails as spam. I've spoken with several networking specialists, and they all shrug their shoulders and say: "It's the server level spam filtering ... it's not very good." GMail in particular is known to be aggressively negative towards email originating from anywhere other than another GMail account.
So in answer to your no doubt intended to be rhetorical question, I use spam filtering in my email system, not on the server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has to intentionally inbox a tiny fraction of spam, otherwise they'll never get corrective feedback on false positives, because basically nobody looks in their spam folder. Also, they have to permit a teensy fraction of stuff that would normally be temp-failed at SMTP time, for the same reason: otherwise it would be impossible for address and network reputation to improve. So sometimes if you see something com…
Ah, that explains some of what I see. I had noticed that my GMail spam folder went from thousands to dozens. I assumed they were zapping most of it but wasn't sure.
Because email is a system designed for ARPAnet not Internet, and it was designed to be used be people who could be trusted to not spam. No protections were built in, and email hasn't fundamentally changed since the late 70's. In mid-late 90's the masses came, and since then we've been adding band-aids to it to keep it alive but the truth of the matter is that it's still an open door just waiting to be walked into. Yo…
Any system that runs off anonymous messages is going to have a spam problem. There isn't anything special about how email is designed that enables spam past that. If you were to design a new system you would have to have signed messages. But we could just do that now with email. It isn't a design choice, it is a choice that we make every time we send an unsigned email.
But then again, there are still laws on the books saying the only way to securely transmit a document is by fax machine. So even if somebody reinvents a backwards compatible email system tomorrow that solves all the problems, people will be to afraid to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't ever be black holed, it should rejected in the SMTP transaction. I'd love to never have to ask "did you get my email message?"
The problem is by the time the message is deemed to be spam it's too late to reject the mail. Ie. The first step verifies the from/to addresses, then the message body is sent. So, if the message body is clearly spam and you reject the message body all you've done is confirmed to the spammer that they are sending to a legit email address and they need to change their message so it no longer is rejected as spam. As bad…
That is incorrect. After the last DATA command from the spammer, your mail server can look at the mail and, if it’s spam, just say
558 5.7.1 That mail is ugly and you are ugly