* If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what @ 2003-04-16 12:53 Preben Randhol 2003-04-16 13:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-04-16 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Then perhaps a Bayesian Spam filter could be a nice challenge. Or if somebody are heading a university student project/diploma work it could a suitable project? Spam is becoming a great problem. Last check I got 30 spam messages in 3 days that was caught by my filter (spamassassin) and about 10 that wasn't. There was also about 3 false negatives (mailed labelled as SPAM but which was really HAM). So I think it is time for me to change spam filtering method. Besides spamassassin is a perl script program and it is a hug resource hog on my computer and it is slow. There are two Bayesian Spam filter implementations in C (ugg :-( ) which has the advantage of being fast. Problem is that with C's track record on buffer overflow I don't trust them to be secure. This is why an Ada implementation would be nice I think. Besides spam filters is something people need so it could promote Ada95. Wish I could make it myself, but I simply don't have the time at the moment. Here are some resources: http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html http://www2.picante.com/~gtaylor/spam/ http://research.microsoft.com/~horvitz/junkfilter.htm http://www.paulgraham.com/better.html http://lwn.net/Articles/9460/ Two implementations in C (ugg!) and Perl (ugg!!) http://www.nongnu.org/ifile/ http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/ One in python: http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/ Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 12:53 If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Preben Randhol @ 2003-04-16 13:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 16:10 ` rd 2003-04-24 13:55 ` Frode Tenneboe 2003-04-16 17:52 ` Jano ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote: > Then perhaps a Bayesian Spam filter could be a nice challenge. Or if > somebody are heading a university student project/diploma work it could > a suitable project? > > Spam is becoming a great problem. Last check I got 30 spam messages in 3 > days that was caught by my filter (spamassassin) and about 10 that > wasn't. There was also about 3 false negatives (mailed labelled as SPAM > but which was really HAM). So I think it is time for me to change spam > filtering method. Besides spamassassin is a perl script program and it > is a hug resource hog on my computer and it is slow. There are two > Bayesian Spam filter implementations in C (ugg :-( ) which has the > advantage of being fast. Problem is that with C's track record on buffer > overflow I don't trust them to be secure. This is why an Ada > implementation would be nice I think. Besides spam filters is something > people need so it could promote Ada95. > > Wish I could make it myself, but I simply don't have the time at the > moment. ... > Preben I personally believe that as long as email is free (and we like it that way), SPAM will continue to be a big problem. To keep email free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up using two forms of email on the Internet: 1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25); which will continually battle with spam filters and such. 2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?) Perhaps the 2nd kind, can piggy back off of the first, by either using a similar but extended protocol, and probably using a new TCP/IP port # to avoid the log jam that occurs on port 25 as spammers spam away. The new email protocol would make use of PKI exchanges (PGP?), so that only those people that you have shared certificates with, can successfully deposit email in your mailbox (this would be great for kids, so that only their friends can send them mail etc.). If someone gives away the cert (if the protocol allows it), then you revoke it, and issue a new one if necessary. Where the protocol research comes in (I think), is the method of sharing and administering certs in a way that is easy for grandmothers to work with. However, this project probably needs to start with an IETF committee, but certainly some Ada prototypes can be useful as "proof of concept" projects. Like you Preben, I'd do this myself if I had the time, but I have to face my own limitations and mortality ;-) Even getting the IETF interested in a formal proposal requires too much of my time to launch. Maybe someone else is willing to think it through and run with it. They can even claim it as their own idea ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 13:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 16:10 ` rd 2003-04-16 16:34 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 19:16 ` If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Pascal Obry 2003-04-24 13:55 ` Frode Tenneboe 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: rd @ 2003-04-16 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > > Preben Randhol wrote: [clip] > > Besides spam filters is something > > people need so it could promote Ada95. > > > > Wish I could make it myself, but I simply don't have the time at the > > moment. > ... > > Preben > > I personally believe that as long as email is free (and we like it > that way), SPAM will continue to be a big problem. To keep email > free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up > using two forms of email on the Internet: > > 1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25); > which will continually battle with spam filters and such. > 2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?) > > Perhaps the 2nd kind, can piggy back off of the first, by either > using a similar but extended protocol, and probably > using a new TCP/IP port # to avoid the log jam that occurs > on port 25 as spammers spam away. > > The new email protocol would make use of PKI exchanges (PGP?), > so that only those people that you have shared certificates > with, can successfully deposit email in your mailbox (this > would be great for kids, so that only their friends can > send them mail etc.). If someone gives away the cert (if the > protocol allows it), then you revoke it, and issue a new one > if necessary. > > Where the protocol research comes in (I think), is the method of > sharing and administering certs in a way that is easy for > grandmothers to work with. > For the second protocol, <a href="http://www.jabber.org">Jabber</a> might be just the thing. The best part about Jabber is the real time messaging capability, and if I was designing the second protocol, I would include this functionality. I don't believe there are any Jabber clients/servers written in Ada, and I'm not sure how well Jabber uses crypto, but I do know that I still miss a useful ICQ, and AIM doesn't fill the void (can't do computer to computer messages in AIM. They must go through the central server). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what) 2003-04-16 16:10 ` rd @ 2003-04-16 16:34 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 17:00 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-16 21:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) rd 2003-04-16 19:16 ` If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Pascal Obry 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw) rd wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: >>Preben Randhol wrote: > [clip] >>>Besides spam filters is something >>>people need so it could promote Ada95. >>> >>>Wish I could make it myself, but I simply don't have the time at the >>>moment. >>... >>>Preben >> >>I personally believe that as long as email is free (and we like it >>that way), SPAM will continue to be a big problem. To keep email >>free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up >>using two forms of email on the Internet: >> >> 1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25); >> which will continually battle with spam filters and such. >> 2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?) >> >>Perhaps the 2nd kind, can piggy back off of the first, by either >>using a similar but extended protocol, and probably >>using a new TCP/IP port # to avoid the log jam that occurs >>on port 25 as spammers spam away. >> >>The new email protocol would make use of PKI exchanges (PGP?), >>so that only those people that you have shared certificates >>with, can successfully deposit email in your mailbox (this >>would be great for kids, so that only their friends can >>send them mail etc.). If someone gives away the cert (if the >>protocol allows it), then you revoke it, and issue a new one >>if necessary. >> >>Where the protocol research comes in (I think), is the method of >>sharing and administering certs in a way that is easy for >>grandmothers to work with. >> > > For the second protocol, <a href="http://www.jabber.org">Jabber</a> > might be just the thing. The best part about Jabber is the real time > messaging capability, and if I was designing the second protocol, I would > include this functionality. If I skimmed the site correctly, it doesn't address the "solicited email only" problem. It seems to be more concerned with XML and IM. What I really want, is a "solicited email only" channel, so that I can give my electronic business card (read "cert.") to associates, and not get pestered with offensive SPAM that I have to delete every morning. I also want to protect my kids from this kind of crap. The only way to eliminate SPAM completely, is to give the "key" to those you will accept mail from, and reject everything else. BTW, ACT does this informally by insisting that you include "GNAT" in the subject line. That "GNAT" acts as the "key". What I'd like to see then, is a more sophisticated form of this, where the key isn't so easily sharable with the world (and perhaps unique to the sender so that it cannot be shared). > I don't believe there are any Jabber clients/servers written in Ada, and > I'm not sure how well Jabber uses crypto, but I do know that I still > miss a useful ICQ, and AIM doesn't fill the void (can't do computer to > computer messages in AIM. They must go through the central server). -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but 2003-04-16 16:34 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 17:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-16 17:43 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 21:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) rd 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-16 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3E9D8625.4090308@cogeco.ca>, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > What I really want, is a "solicited email only" channel, so that I > can give my electronic business card (read "cert.") to associates, > and not get pestered with offensive SPAM that I have to delete > every morning. I also want to protect my kids from this kind of > crap. Unfortunately, some of us must accept correspondence (and therefore under your plan, give a certificate to) people who cannot be trusted to protect their own private key. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but 2003-04-16 17:00 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-16 17:43 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 18:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-16 19:19 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Larry Kilgallen wrote: > In article <3E9D8625.4090308@cogeco.ca>, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > >>What I really want, is a "solicited email only" channel, so that I >>can give my electronic business card (read "cert.") to associates, >>and not get pestered with offensive SPAM that I have to delete >>every morning. I also want to protect my kids from this kind of >>crap. > > Unfortunately, some of us must accept correspondence (and therefore > under your plan, give a certificate to) people who cannot be trusted > to protect their own private key. Yes of course. But that is why you need a key that is only usable by a specific sender. It is also useful to have another class of key (cert) that can be shared. However, in this 2nd case, if one person abuses it, then you have to revoke it for the entire group. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but 2003-04-16 17:43 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 18:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-16 18:48 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada tmoran 2003-04-17 16:51 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 19:19 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2003-04-16 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Warren" == Warren W Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: Warren> Yes of course. But that is why you need a key that is only Warren> usable by a specific sender. A lot of solutions exist, none of them is perfect yet. For example, I protect myself with SpamAssassin (http://www.spamassassin.org) and WLE (http://www.rfc1149.net/wle). The only spams I have received in months were not-so-suspect mails coming through mailing-lists I subscribe to. And only a few people had to do an extra manipulation to send me email. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada 2003-04-16 18:03 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2003-04-16 18:48 ` tmoran 2003-04-16 20:58 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-04-17 16:51 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2003-04-16 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw) I'd sign up for an ISP where anyone who wanted to send me an e-mail would have to pay $.02, refundable on my say-so. That would make spam largely uneconomic. But that's an industrial organization, not a programming languages, problem. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada 2003-04-16 18:48 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada tmoran @ 2003-04-16 20:58 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-04-16 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw) tmoran@acm.org wrote: : But that[spam]'s an industrial organization, not a programming : languages, problem. Yes. Precisely. Unfortunately, the banks seem slow in picking up the idea of organizing small amount payments. Spam should be passed on to our representatives, in the form of requests for better legislation. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but 2003-04-16 18:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-16 18:48 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada tmoran @ 2003-04-17 16:51 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 21:54 ` Robert A Duff 2003-04-17 23:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-17 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: >>>>>>"Warren" == Warren W Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > > Warren> Yes of course. But that is why you need a key that is only > Warren> usable by a specific sender. > > A lot of solutions exist, none of them is perfect yet. For example, I > protect myself with SpamAssassin (http://www.spamassassin.org) and WLE > (http://www.rfc1149.net/wle). The only spams I have received in months > were not-so-suspect mails coming through mailing-lists I subscribe to. > And only a few people had to do an extra manipulation to send me email. > > Sam A key based system can be made to work nearly 100%. If people give away secrets (just like giving away system passwords), then you can't do much about that. However, it can be easily corrected, if you then change the cert. Any "filter" based solution is going to be a continually losing battle. It is not a "solution". Sure you can filter today against: viagara v.i.a.g.a.r.a v/i/*a/g/a-ra But then next month you'll be adding: V-aye a graw and so on. Then your filters become so strong, that someone sends me an email about "Meet you in Niagara", and your filter will eliminate that message on me. This is not a final solution! PGP and other encryption technology can make it nearly impossible for people to forge an authentication. How many spammers will spend time on a supercomputer cracking a successful cert to spam little ol' me? They might for a Microsoft email address, but then MS can afford to deal with the spam ;-) But increased levels of encryption can make it even more difficult, when necessary (at least until the desktop quantum computer arrives). ;-) Maybe it can be a "parameter" of the process. We need to think about the _larger_ picture here. Too many people are stuck in the "let's filter" thinking, which is only a half measure. I'd like to challenge everyone to look to at a solicited email only solution. This is the _only_ way to eliminate unwanted mail (proof witheld ;-) This is doable. PGP has been providing safe email communication for quite some time. We just need to apply the same technology to restrict email to "solicited only email". Use encrypted attachments (for example) to authenticate the sender and receiver relationship. I do agree that filtering is probably the only solution to _unsolicited_ mail. But if everyone starts to use "solicited only email" to avoid spam, and only very occaisionally checking the unsolicited email box, maybe the spammers will give up? Maybe that is thinking just a little optimistic ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but 2003-04-17 16:51 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-17 21:54 ` Robert A Duff 2003-04-17 22:39 ` AG 2003-04-18 8:27 ` Preben Randhol 2003-04-17 23:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2003-04-17 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > We need to think about the _larger_ picture here. Too many people > are stuck in the "let's filter" thinking, which is only a half > measure. I'd like to challenge everyone to look to at a solicited > email only solution. This is the _only_ way to eliminate unwanted > mail (proof witheld ;-) But I *want* unsolicited email in some cases, like when somebody sends, "Hey, you've never heard of me, but I heard your company (SofCheck, Inc.) make static analysis tools, which I might want to buy. Please tell me more." I don't want to pester such a person with extra hassles involving encryption, or transactions of $0.02 and refunds thereof. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but 2003-04-17 21:54 ` Robert A Duff @ 2003-04-17 22:39 ` AG 2003-04-18 8:27 ` Preben Randhol 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2003-04-17 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:wcche8wpz6x.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... > > We need to think about the _larger_ picture here. Too many people > > are stuck in the "let's filter" thinking, which is only a half > > measure. I'd like to challenge everyone to look to at a solicited > > email only solution. This is the _only_ way to eliminate unwanted > > mail (proof witheld ;-) > > But I *want* unsolicited email in some cases Well, if you do that's fine. > , like when somebody sends, > "Hey, you've never heard of me, but I heard your company (SofCheck, > Inc.) make static analysis tools, which I might want to buy. Please > tell me more." If you expect that sort of mail in a free-for-all mailbox you would probably have some people sifting through all the junk coming into it - even after any reasonable filters killed half of it (and paying the costs of course). > I don't want to pester such a person with extra hassles > involving encryption, or transactions of $0.02 and refunds thereof. However, suppose I want to have a mailbox which is freely visible and accessible. I might actually buy something that's advertised on that unsolicited mail. But: let's say any mail to that mailbox is automatically charged that $0.02 after 48 hours unless I cancel that in the meantime. (Any e-mail that can't be traced or charged is automatically rejected). Now, that would allow two things: Any person/company/organization that has a legitimate reason to use it need not worry - no charge happens. Any would-be seller is free to try it (at $0.02 it's not a big deal if you really hope for a sale and it may even be refunded if the sale works). However, in the case of mass-mailer spam that would quickly become prohibitive: If you can't be charged you don't get to post. If you can, then, say, a million posts to such addresses would mean $20,000 investment up front with little chance of recovery ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but 2003-04-17 21:54 ` Robert A Duff 2003-04-17 22:39 ` AG @ 2003-04-18 8:27 ` Preben Randhol 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-04-18 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert A Duff wrote: > But I *want* unsolicited email in some cases, like when somebody sends, > "Hey, you've never heard of me, but I heard your company (SofCheck, > Inc.) make static analysis tools, which I might want to buy. Please > tell me more." I don't want to pester such a person with extra hassles > involving encryption, or transactions of $0.02 and refunds thereof. Doesn't sound like Spam to me. Here is Spam (that I got this morning): [ENGR.MATETE OBI] 20 [GnomeMeeting-list] HELLO!!! [bullettree27863] 9 hi [Photoshop@beefy] 22 Limited Time Only - Photoshop 7 - For A Low Low P [Photoshop@beefy] 22 Limited Time Only - Photoshop 7 - For A Low Low P [broadcast@black] 303 Fax, Voice, and Printing Tools for Software Devel [su ] 2 ���������������� ��������� e-mail �������� � ���� [kathleen ] 2 ���������������� ��������� e-mail �������� � ���� [mpinfo ] 37 A internet cafe manager software was designed for [broadcast@black] 303 Fax, Voice, and Printing Tools for Software Devel [Sietse Elsinga ] 64 Fwd: Increase sexual energy - Reduce body fat! [Clara ] 28 analpleasure7.jpg (ID:FCPCXZW) [smat8_adfjasdjf] 16 RHome Loans!... Debt Consolidation... Refinance.. [TV Descrambler ] 17 Watch Premium Tv for Free! Not interesting at all I think. Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-17 16:51 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 21:54 ` Robert A Duff @ 2003-04-17 23:38 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-18 0:06 ` AG 2003-04-18 7:32 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-17 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote in message <3E9EDB7B.2090901@cogeco.ca>... >I do agree that filtering is probably the only solution to >_unsolicited_ mail. But if everyone starts to use "solicited >only email" to avoid spam, and only very occaisionally checking >the unsolicited email box, maybe the spammers will give up? A lot of us NEED to get unsolicited mail. If we don't take random queries from the public, how would we ever get a new customer? Similarly, the Ada-Comment mailing list is open to any Ada programmer to comment. We don't want to restrict it to the 'inner circle'. I do agree that filtering itself is not a solution, only a 'fix'. But for most of us that don't get to invent new mail protocols, it's the only practical fix. I get 200+ spam a day here; without filtering, I'd never get anything done. Note that an encryption based mail is not a lot different than a whitelist. The only advantage is that encryption would prevent spammers from sending you mail by spoofing someone on the whitelist. But that's going to be tough for a spammer to guess the contents of an individual's whitelist, even for someone as public as myself, and a pain to do it for every one of the millions of addresses that they spam. Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-17 23:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-18 0:06 ` AG 2003-04-18 0:32 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 7:32 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2003-04-18 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw) "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:v9uel6jr5ubhff@corp.supernews.com... > A lot of us NEED to get unsolicited mail. If we don't take random > queries from the public, how would we ever get a new customer? There is a flip side to that though. From the point of view of a potential customer: Suppose I mail a real query to your mailbox swamped by spam. How do I know it will make it past the filters? Even if it did, what are the chances that whoever scans the mail notices that particular one? etc etc On the other hand - if you, as a company I deal or would like to deal with, had a $0.02-refunded mailbox I would probably risk that much money to make sure I reach you. [That's not just a theoretical thing - right now I'm trying to reach a certain company with a simple sales-related question. I'm a registered user and quote order number and dates and it still doesn't get through. I'm sure I've spent more than 2 cents by now on trying it and, as a company, you can bet the non-existence of a more direct mail-box is going to cost you some business] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 0:06 ` AG @ 2003-04-18 0:32 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 0:48 ` AG 2003-04-21 18:50 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-18 0:32 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <ZjHna.4702$mZ4.85444@news.xtra.co.nz>, "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes: > "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message > news:v9uel6jr5ubhff@corp.supernews.com... >> A lot of us NEED to get unsolicited mail. If we don't take random >> queries from the public, how would we ever get a new customer? > > There is a flip side to that though. From the point of view > of a potential customer: Suppose I mail a real query to > your mailbox swamped by spam. How do I know it > will make it past the filters? If Randy is using DNS-blocklist rejection and you are unfortunate enough to share an IP address with a spammer, you will get a notice back that your mail did not get through. You can then decide whether to try an alternate contact mechanism. If Randy is using DNS-blocklist teergrubbing, and you are unfortunate enough to share an IP address with a spammer, you will get a notice from your own ISP after whatever length of time they choose to give up. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 0:32 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-18 0:48 ` AG 2003-04-18 2:10 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-21 18:50 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2003-04-18 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw) "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message news:jWK3W3dD2y0A@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article <ZjHna.4702$mZ4.85444@news.xtra.co.nz>, "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes: > > "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message > > news:v9uel6jr5ubhff@corp.supernews.com... > >> A lot of us NEED to get unsolicited mail. If we don't take random > >> queries from the public, how would we ever get a new customer? > > > > There is a flip side to that though. From the point of view > > of a potential customer: Suppose I mail a real query to > > your mailbox swamped by spam. How do I know it > > will make it past the filters? > > You can then decide whether to try an alternate contact mechanism. Like what? An international phone call (listening to "your call is important to us" at your expense), snail mail or personal visit? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 0:48 ` AG @ 2003-04-18 2:10 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 3:13 ` AG ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-18 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <DXHna.4795$mZ4.86664@news.xtra.co.nz>, "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes: > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message > news:jWK3W3dD2y0A@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> In article <ZjHna.4702$mZ4.85444@news.xtra.co.nz>, "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> > writes: >> > "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message >> > news:v9uel6jr5ubhff@corp.supernews.com... >> >> A lot of us NEED to get unsolicited mail. If we don't take random >> >> queries from the public, how would we ever get a new customer? >> > >> > There is a flip side to that though. From the point of view >> > of a potential customer: Suppose I mail a real query to >> > your mailbox swamped by spam. How do I know it >> > will make it past the filters? >> > >> You can then decide whether to try an alternate contact mechanism. > > Like what? An international phone call (listening > to "your call is important to us" at your expense), > snail mail or personal visit? Certainly. If you choose to associate with spammers (in the DNSbl comment I made just before my line above), you are already fighting this battle every day. (By "choose to associate", I include staying with an ISP who will not dump the spammers.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 2:10 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-18 3:13 ` AG 2003-04-18 4:50 ` tmoran 2003-04-18 11:23 ` Larry Kilgallen [not found] ` <g3Kna.5120$mZ4.89596@news.xtra.co.nzOrganization: LJK Software <JKMUgN4L70TN@eisner.encompasserve.org> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2003-04-18 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw) "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message news:U$J6hEh5KA1v@eisner.encompasserve.org... > Certainly. If you choose to associate with spammers (in the DNSbl > comment I made just before my line above), you are already fighting > this battle every day. (By "choose to associate", I include staying > with an ISP who will not dump the spammers.) Sorry, I guess we've drifted quite a bit off-topic here. Let's try to get a little closer to the subject line [before the (was ...) part]. For example: your DNS comments were a bit above my head - I know what you are talking about but it would be a little hard to translate that into the everyday e-mail usage. How exactly did I choose to associate with spammers? Am I supposed to check the policies of each and every ISP provider I happen to use at the moment? And enforce their no-spam policy? [If you really think my current ISP provider is involved in aiding and abetting spamming activities - send me a signed affidavit stating so and I'll forward it to the relevant authorities :-) ] In case you have not noticed, my original point was exactly that it would be nice to have the situation changed so that everyone can post to an open address if they are willing to bet a dime or so on it. For any real bona-fide postings that should not be a problem. But that small charge should strongly discourage any automatic mass-mailer things. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 3:13 ` AG @ 2003-04-18 4:50 ` tmoran 2003-04-18 11:26 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2003-04-18 4:50 UTC (permalink / raw) We currently have a large experiment on one way to lessen spammers. It's the telephone system. People who want to accept everything have 800 numbers. People who call non-800 numbers pay something for the call. It doesn't stop all spam, but there are surely fewer telemarketing calls than spam e-mails (though the former are each a bigger pain). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 4:50 ` tmoran @ 2003-04-18 11:26 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-18 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <OuLna.500188$3D1.271350@sccrnsc01>, tmoran@acm.org writes: > We currently have a large experiment on one way to lessen spammers. > It's the telephone system. People who want to accept everything have > 800 numbers. People who call non-800 numbers pay something for the > call. It doesn't stop all spam, but there are surely fewer telemarketing > calls than spam e-mails (though the former are each a bigger pain). We also have a way to detect the originator of calls (caller-ID). Originators have a large-scale method of getting around it (in the US) through purchasing T3 level trunks using analog protocols. We even have an entry-level method of getting around it, by getting an ISDN line in the US. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 2:10 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 3:13 ` AG @ 2003-04-18 11:23 ` Larry Kilgallen [not found] ` <g3Kna.5120$mZ4.89596@news.xtra.co.nzOrganization: LJK Software <JKMUgN4L70TN@eisner.encompasserve.org> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-18 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <g3Kna.5120$mZ4.89596@news.xtra.co.nz>, "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes: > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message > news:U$J6hEh5KA1v@eisner.encompasserve.org... > >> Certainly. If you choose to associate with spammers (in the DNSbl >> comment I made just before my line above), you are already fighting >> this battle every day. (By "choose to associate", I include staying >> with an ISP who will not dump the spammers.) > > Sorry, I guess we've drifted quite a bit off-topic here. > Let's try to get a little closer to the subject line [before > the (was ...) part]. For example: your DNS comments > were a bit above my head - I know what you are talking > about but it would be a little hard to translate that into the > everyday e-mail usage. A DNSbl lists IP addresses from which spam emanates. Many ISPs reject all messages from the IP addresses on one or more such lists. That can reduce their message handling expenses up to 50% and give their customers a cleaner email environment. Opinions of customers vary, and customers should ensure they choose a receiving ISP whose attitude about this matches their own. > How exactly did I choose to associate with spammers? By patronizing an ISP that will pool your email with that of spammers, giving you the same sending IP address as the spam. Typically the email server sending address, different from "your" IP address (if any). > Am I supposed to check the policies of each and every > ISP provider I happen to use at the moment? And enforce > their no-spam policy? You should choose your ISPs wisely, consulting DNSbls and newsgroups to check their reputation. > In case you have not noticed, my original point was exactly > that it would be nice to have the situation changed so that > everyone can post to an open address if they are willing to > bet a dime or so on it. It would be nice, but that technology was lost when the world chose the SMTP "business" model rather than the X.400 business model. This is Gresham's law as applied to network protocols, made clear in this case not by a bit-level analysis but rather by the interaction of the ivory tower protocol with the real world. I don't mean to burden the group with an off-topic discussion, but efforts to produce the next killer application in Ada need domain knowledge in addition to software engineering techniques. The domain of spamfighting includes a lot of information about social interactions rather than just cryptography. If someone is really prepared to be a unifying force to get all vendors to agree on a new protocol, that is a monumental effort and I wish you luck. Just make sure you cover all platforms used for email, including Macintosh 68K and VAX. -- ============================================================================== The Boulder Pledge: "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited email message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." ============================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <g3Kna.5120$mZ4.89596@news.xtra.co.nzOrganization: LJK Software <JKMUgN4L70TN@eisner.encompasserve.org>]
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut [not found] ` <g3Kna.5120$mZ4.89596@news.xtra.co.nzOrganization: LJK Software <JKMUgN4L70TN@eisner.encompasserve.org> @ 2003-04-19 6:36 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2003-04-19 6:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Larry Kilgallen wrote: > I don't mean to burden the group with an off-topic discussion, but > efforts to produce the next killer application in Ada need domain > knowledge in addition to software engineering techniques. The domain > of spamfighting includes a lot of information about social interactions > rather than just cryptography. If someone is really prepared to be a > unifying force to get all vendors to agree on a new protocol, that is > a monumental effort and I wish you luck. Just make sure you cover all > platforms used for email, including Macintosh 68K and VAX. Yes and no. It is perfectly reasonable to limit the solution to one or more environments. "more" need not mean "all". Anybody wanting to write a killer Ada application should read Alan Cooper's "The Inmates Are Running The Asylum". You don't have to agree with everything, just understand what he is saying. greetings, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 0:32 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 0:48 ` AG @ 2003-04-21 18:50 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-21 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Larry Kilgallen wrote in message ... >In article <ZjHna.4702$mZ4.85444@news.xtra.co.nz>, "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes: >> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message >> news:v9uel6jr5ubhff@corp.supernews.com... >>> A lot of us NEED to get unsolicited mail. If we don't take random >>> queries from the public, how would we ever get a new customer? >> >> There is a flip side to that though. From the point of view >> of a potential customer: Suppose I mail a real query to >> your mailbox swamped by spam. How do I know it >> will make it past the filters? > >If Randy is using DNS-blocklist rejection and you are unfortunate >enough to share an IP address with a spammer, you will get a notice >back that your mail did not get through. You can then decide whether >to try an alternate contact mechanism. > >If Randy is using DNS-blocklist teergrubbing, and you are unfortunate >enough to share an IP address with a spammer, you will get a notice >from your own ISP after whatever length of time they choose to give up. Actually, Randy only quarentines mail that comes from IPs on blocklists. I've had way too many co-workers and customers get on those blocklists somehow. The only things I block are mails containing clearly spam phrases, sources, or links. And I have a whitelist that prevents that for known correspondents. So mail can be delayed, but real mail isn't discarded. Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-17 23:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Randy Brukardt 2003-04-18 0:06 ` AG @ 2003-04-18 7:32 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2003-04-18 11:32 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-19 20:10 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2003-04-18 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw) [ I think we ought to discuss this elsewhere, but where? ] Randy Brukardt wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote in message <3E9EDB7B.2090901@cogeco.ca>... > A lot of us NEED to get unsolicited mail. Agreed. > If we don't take random > queries from the public, how would we ever get a new customer? > Similarly, the Ada-Comment mailing list is open to any Ada programmer to > comment. We don't want to restrict it to the 'inner circle'. Excactly. But wouldn't you agree that legitimate senders shouldn't worry about signing messages sent to your company or to the Ada-Comment mailing list? In some countries it is illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail (or to make unsolicited commercial phone calls). So if you set up your mail server to reject unsigned messages with a polite comment requesting that people sign their letters with a valid identifiable signature (and maybe also a reference to the rules about unsolicited commercial e-mail), you would be able to catch the senders of unsolicited commercials and thus most likely be able to scare them from sending anything to you in the first place. Can anyone point to some obvious holes in this argument? > without filtering, I'd never get anything done. Same here. Jacob -- "Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DOD groups to protect themselves against cyberattacks" -- Mitre Corp. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 7:32 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2003-04-18 11:32 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-19 4:45 ` [way off-topic] A new spammer is born? Wesley Groleau 2003-04-19 20:10 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-18 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3E9FAA18.1040909@crs4.it>, Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@crs4.it> writes: > In some countries it is illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail But most of those countries accept email from other countries, where such laws do not exist. > (or to make unsolicited commercial phone calls). So if you set up your > mail server to reject unsigned messages with a polite comment requesting > that people sign their letters with a valid identifiable signature (and > maybe also a reference to the rules about unsolicited commercial > e-mail), you would be able to catch the senders of unsolicited > commercials and thus most likely be able to scare them from sending > anything to you in the first place. You would also annoy legitimate correspondents who do not run your chosen signature software on their favorite email system (perhaps because it is unavailable for that platform). If you were incompetent, you would use that software on an address which you had subscribed to a mailing list. I have software to discard such challenges from clueless mailing list recipients, some of whom send them even when my post was to a newsgroup. If this practice were not concentrated in a few identifiable formats, it would be worse than the "out of office" notices in response to posts. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* [way off-topic] A new spammer is born? 2003-04-18 11:32 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-19 4:45 ` Wesley Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-19 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw) I just received 20 KB of HTML spam, complete with with lots of colors and content-free graphics. I was amazed at where it came from, though: Zone Labs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-18 7:32 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2003-04-18 11:32 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-19 20:10 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-04-19 21:15 ` AG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-04-19 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@crs4.it> wrote: : : In some countries it is illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail : (or to make unsolicited commercial phone calls). So if you set up your : mail server to reject unsigned messages with a polite comment requesting : that people sign their letters with a valid identifiable signature (and : maybe also a reference to the rules about unsolicited commercial : e-mail), you would be able to catch the senders of unsolicited : commercials and thus most likely be able to scare them from sending : anything to you in the first place. That sounds just like the old way of catching senders when they didn't have a fake email address, with flaming to follow. One or more central signature verifying authorities are certainly problematic in that someone will have to guarantee absence of abuse of the data base. We don't manage absence of abuse of spam mail, so there... If you want the possibility of anonymous email, not just for aquiring customers, but also in the form of a cry for help of a person who had better not identify himself or herself to the surveilling governmental sniffers in, say, Costa Peligrosa, then a signiture is as fatal as an address that can be tracked down. Mail abuse is a social, organisational problem, and cannot be solved ignoring its social characteristic. In a world where money is part of decision making, money is one powerful means to control things, absent better solutions like knowledgeable polititians and knowledgeable judges. (Or a better world in general :-) So if email trafic has to be paid for, counting every mail, spammers will think twice, because they must make a decision like everyone else who advertizes the traditional way. The decision criteria will be both about money and possible punishment. Social pressure is needed. The technical difficulty then is to find a way to make sure every email is handled only if an electric stamp is present. -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-19 20:10 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-04-19 21:15 ` AG 2003-04-20 15:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2003-04-19 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw) "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:b7safn$aat$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de... > The technical difficulty then is to find a way to make sure > every email is handled only if an electric stamp is present. How about that: If you post from a regular ISP account - the ISP sure knows how to charge you - they send you a bill every month or so. If you are posting from something like I-Net cafe - just drop a nickel into the slot machine before you can do that. Now, if my ISP offers (as an option which anyone may or may not subscribe to) a mailbox which *only* accepts mails from such destinations and silently discards everything else - I would be willing to get one like that. Wouldn't you? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-19 21:15 ` AG @ 2003-04-20 15:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-04-21 3:33 ` Wesley Groleau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-04-20 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) AG <ang@xtra.co.nz> wrote: : If you post from a regular ISP account - the ISP : sure knows how to charge you - they send you : a bill every month or so. If only some of them hadn't started to give away free (and unchecked) accounts. : Now, if my ISP offers (as an option which : anyone may or may not subscribe to) a mailbox : which *only* accepts mails from such destinations : and silently discards everything else - I would be : willing to get one like that. Wouldn't you? I'd rather be able to decide myself which eMail I want to read. So I'd prefer a solution that isn't silently throwing mail away. The problem of determining which email has been legitimately sent and which is fraud remains, because of fraudulent providers. I think it is much more a problem of establishing the moral rules, and their effects, that will hinder spammers. Is it true that unsolicited faxes are less frequent than unsolicited emails? If so, why? ;-) -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut 2003-04-20 15:31 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-04-21 3:33 ` Wesley Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-21 3:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > rules, and their effects, that will hinder spammers. Is it true > that unsolicited faxes are less frequent than unsolicited emails? > If so, why? ;-) Because in the U.S., federal law allows us to charge the sender of an unsolicited fax $500. Some courts have been sympathetic to the notion that the same law applies to e-mails. But not all--and collecting is quite difficult. By the way, the guy that was the inspiration for the "Junk Fax Law" was Spamford Wallace. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada 2003-04-16 17:43 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 18:03 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2003-04-16 19:19 ` Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-16 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3E9D9642.2030303@cogeco.ca>, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> In article <3E9D8625.4090308@cogeco.ca>, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: >> >>>What I really want, is a "solicited email only" channel, so that I >>>can give my electronic business card (read "cert.") to associates, >>>and not get pestered with offensive SPAM that I have to delete >>>every morning. I also want to protect my kids from this kind of >>>crap. >> >> Unfortunately, some of us must accept correspondence (and therefore >> under your plan, give a certificate to) people who cannot be trusted >> to protect their own private key. > > Yes of course. But that is why you need a key that is only usable > by a specific sender. But the only way to determine that a specific sender is using it is via their private key. And if they do not protect that, someone can steal it along with the certificate you issued. This will all get automated by the bad guys, aided by their dupes in Redmond. Therefore such an attack against spam is much less useful than some other method, even a program to automatically write letters to one's legislators. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) 2003-04-16 16:34 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 17:00 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Larry Kilgallen @ 2003-04-16 21:38 ` rd 2003-04-16 22:03 ` Samuel Tardieu ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: rd @ 2003-04-16 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > > rd wrote: > > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > >>Preben Randhol wrote: > > [clip] > >>>Besides spam filters is something > >>>people need so it could promote Ada95. > >>> > >>>Wish I could make it myself, but I simply don't have the time at the > >>>moment. > >>... > >>>Preben > >> > >>I personally believe that as long as email is free (and we like it > >>that way), SPAM will continue to be a big problem. To keep email > >>free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up > >>using two forms of email on the Internet: > >> > >> 1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25); > >> which will continually battle with spam filters and such. > >> 2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?) > >> > >>Perhaps the 2nd kind, can piggy back off of the first, by either > >>using a similar but extended protocol, and probably > >>using a new TCP/IP port # to avoid the log jam that occurs > >>on port 25 as spammers spam away. > >> > >>The new email protocol would make use of PKI exchanges (PGP?), > >>so that only those people that you have shared certificates > >>with, can successfully deposit email in your mailbox (this > >>would be great for kids, so that only their friends can > >>send them mail etc.). If someone gives away the cert (if the > >>protocol allows it), then you revoke it, and issue a new one > >>if necessary. > >> > >>Where the protocol research comes in (I think), is the method of > >>sharing and administering certs in a way that is easy for > >>grandmothers to work with. > >> > > > > For the second protocol, <a href="http://www.jabber.org">Jabber</a> > > might be just the thing. The best part about Jabber is the real time > > messaging capability, and if I was designing the second protocol, I would > > include this functionality. > > If I skimmed the site correctly, it doesn't address the "solicited > email only" problem. It seems to be more concerned with XML and IM. > > What I really want, is a "solicited email only" channel, so that I > can give my electronic business card (read "cert.") to associates, > and not get pestered with offensive SPAM that I have to delete > every morning. I also want to protect my kids from this kind of > crap. My big sticking point was the real-time messaging. I haven't had an operational ICQ in years (I'm not going to upgrade) and it would solve several little problems for me. Bonus points if it was encrypted by default. > The only way to eliminate SPAM completely, is to give the > "key" to those you will accept mail from, and reject everything > else. BTW, ACT does this informally by insisting that you include > "GNAT" in the subject line. That "GNAT" acts as the "key". What > I'd like to see then, is a more sophisticated form of this, where the > key isn't so easily sharable with the world (and perhaps unique > to the sender so that it cannot be shared). Designing a protocol for this probably wouldn't be overly difficult. It'd really just be email guarded by a public/private key scheme, with filtering based on who has your public (semi-public) key. Since we're redesigning email, we might as well go ahead and integrate encryption all the way through it. Selling ISPs on this would be a cakewalk: spam is blocked by default, so spammers will eventually stop spamming; it would envolve about the same server power as email does now, but be far more powerful; if the text messaging features were included, it would solve the interoffice security problems some companies have (people would use instant messagers like AIM to send stuff that should be kept secure); POP3 could be dumped for something that uses more than a flimsy password; and many other little problems with email could be resolved. The encryption schemes to solve all these problems exist now, it's just a matter of people sitting down and pounding out the actual protocol. I can't think of a reason it wouldn't be immediately adopted. To my mind, the biggest problem communication schemes face is not being mainstream. It's already not a difficult matter to encrypt emails with PGP, but I still don't get encrypted emails, and I don't send them myself (often). And to stay sort of inline with the original poster, doing this in Ada first would be a good way to promote the language. Sorry for rambling, I tend to do that when I start to get excited about a topic. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) 2003-04-16 21:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) rd @ 2003-04-16 22:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-17 0:16 ` rd 2003-04-17 16:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 22:02 ` Robert A Duff 2 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2003-04-16 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw) > To my > mind, the biggest problem communication schemes face is not being > mainstream. It's already not a difficult matter to encrypt emails > with PGP, but I still don't get encrypted emails, and I don't send them > myself (often). The problem with OpenPGP is that you do not know whether people do prefer encrypted emails or not. I do favor them, but I know people who want to use OpenPGP only when they need to, because it adds some complexity into their email system. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) 2003-04-16 22:03 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2003-04-17 0:16 ` rd 2003-04-17 16:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: rd @ 2003-04-17 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: > > > To my > > mind, the biggest problem communication schemes face is not being > > mainstream. It's already not a difficult matter to encrypt emails > > with PGP, but I still don't get encrypted emails, and I don't send them > > myself (often). > > The problem with OpenPGP is that you do not know whether people do > prefer encrypted emails or not. I do favor them, but I know people > who want to use OpenPGP only when they need to, because it adds > some complexity into their email system. Which is why I'm so hyped up over a new email system that uses strong public key encryption by default. The complexity added is already fairly low. If it were built into the protocol, then the complexity would be almost nothing. My parents are new computer users, and I'm sure they could use an email program with the encryption, even if they don't understand the mathematical nuances behind the encryption. They already have to enter a username and passphrase to check their email anyway. The inroad to getting this thing designed and implemented is how it stops spam. That alone is enough to get a new encrypted email system in widespread use, and if it happens to make encrypted email the norm, then so much the better. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) 2003-04-16 22:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-17 0:16 ` rd @ 2003-04-17 16:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-17 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: >>To my >>mind, the biggest problem communication schemes face is not being >>mainstream. It's already not a difficult matter to encrypt emails >>with PGP, but I still don't get encrypted emails, and I don't send them >>myself (often). > > The problem with OpenPGP is that you do not know whether people do > prefer encrypted emails or not. I do favor them, but I know people > who want to use OpenPGP only when they need to, because it adds > some complexity into their email system. > > Sam Part of the solution is of course looking for ways to simplify. However, I have never found sendmail to be simple, and yet it is still widely used. But there is room to design something better! -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) 2003-04-16 21:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) rd 2003-04-16 22:03 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2003-04-17 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 22:02 ` Robert A Duff 2 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-17 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) rd wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: >>rd wrote: >>>"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: >>>>Preben Randhol wrote: >>> >>>[clip] >>> >>>>>Besides spam filters is something >>>>>people need so it could promote Ada95. >>>>> >>>>>Wish I could make it myself, but I simply don't have the time at the >>>>>moment. >>>> >>>>... >>>> >>>>>Preben >>>> >>>>I personally believe that as long as email is free (and we like it >>>>that way), SPAM will continue to be a big problem. To keep email >>>>free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up >>>>using two forms of email on the Internet: >>>> >>>> 1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25); >>>> which will continually battle with spam filters and such. >>>> 2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?) >>>> >>>>Perhaps the 2nd kind, can piggy back off of the first, by either >>>>using a similar but extended protocol, and probably >>>>using a new TCP/IP port # to avoid the log jam that occurs >>>>on port 25 as spammers spam away. >>>> >>>>The new email protocol would make use of PKI exchanges (PGP?), >>>>so that only those people that you have shared certificates >>>>with, can successfully deposit email in your mailbox (this >>>>would be great for kids, so that only their friends can >>>>send them mail etc.). If someone gives away the cert (if the >>>>protocol allows it), then you revoke it, and issue a new one >>>>if necessary. >>>> >>>>Where the protocol research comes in (I think), is the method of >>>>sharing and administering certs in a way that is easy for >>>>grandmothers to work with. ... >>The only way to eliminate SPAM completely, is to give the >>"key" to those you will accept mail from, and reject everything >>else. BTW, ACT does this informally by insisting that you include >>"GNAT" in the subject line. That "GNAT" acts as the "key". What >>I'd like to see then, is a more sophisticated form of this, where the >>key isn't so easily sharable with the world (and perhaps unique >>to the sender so that it cannot be shared). > > Designing a protocol for this probably wouldn't be overly difficult. > It'd really just be email guarded by a public/private key scheme, with > filtering based on who has your public (semi-public) key. > > Since we're redesigning email, we might as well go ahead and integrate > encryption all the way through it. Selling ISPs on this would be a > cakewalk: spam is blocked by default, so spammers will eventually stop > spamming; it would envolve about the same server power as email does > now, but be far more powerful; if the text messaging features were > included, it would solve the interoffice security problems some > companies have (people would use instant messagers like AIM to send > stuff that should be kept secure); POP3 could be dumped for something > that uses more than a flimsy password; and many other little problems > with email could be resolved. Now you're talkin'. It is reassuring to see that some people understand the bigger picture here. Yes, I agree there would be an opportunity to address many other issues, like the ones you have cited. > The encryption schemes to solve all these problems exist now, it's just > a matter of people sitting down and pounding out the actual protocol. Yes! Thank you. > I can't think of a reason it wouldn't be immediately adopted. To my > mind, the biggest problem communication schemes face is not being > mainstream. Yep - logistics. > It's already not a difficult matter to encrypt emails > with PGP, but I still don't get encrypted emails, and I don't send them > myself (often). Well, if some were to start offering a port 26 service (smtp2?), then perhaps with time we'll see dual-mode delivery, until such time everyone supports the new protocol. > And to stay sort of inline with the original poster, doing this in Ada > first would be a good way to promote the language. YES! That is why I took the opportunity to lay out some of my rambling thoughts. I don't have the energy or the time to do this, but I would be glad for someone else to do this. > Sorry for rambling, I tend to do that when I start to get excited about > a topic. I am encouraged that there are some out there that are willing to think beyond "filtering". We need a solution folks. If there were a golden opportunity for Internet fame (which could help Ada), then I see this as one. Just think: folks that insisted on having C versions, would have to port your Ada code to C/C++! The reference version would of course be the Ada version! Any fish biting yet? -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) 2003-04-16 21:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) rd 2003-04-16 22:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-17 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-17 22:02 ` Robert A Duff 2 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2003-04-17 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) rd <nospam@spam.no> writes: >...and many other little problems > with email could be resolved. How about this annoying little problem: If the text of your e-mail (not the headers) contains a line starting with "From", the software inserts ">". - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 16:10 ` rd 2003-04-16 16:34 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 19:16 ` Pascal Obry 2003-04-16 19:42 ` Samuel Tardieu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2003-04-16 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw) rd <nospam@spam.no> writes: > I don't believe there are any Jabber clients/servers written in Ada, and There is one Jaffar: http://picolibre.enst-bretagne.fr/projects/jaffar/ Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 19:16 ` If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Pascal Obry @ 2003-04-16 19:42 ` Samuel Tardieu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2003-04-16 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes: >> I don't believe there are any Jabber clients/servers written in >> Ada, and Pascal> There is one Jaffar: http://picolibre.enst-bretagne.fr/projects/jaffar/ It was developped by students I supervised. If anyone wants to take the developpement from the current sources, create an account on picolibre and I'll add you as a developper. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 13:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 16:10 ` rd @ 2003-04-24 13:55 ` Frode Tenneboe 2003-04-28 16:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Frode Tenneboe @ 2003-04-24 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote: > > free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up > using two forms of email on the Internet: > 1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25); > which will continually battle with spam filters and such. > 2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?) The second form (or close) is being explored in some form right now: http://www.networkadvertising.org/espc/042303lumos.asp -Frode -- ^ Frode Tenneb� | email: Frode.Tennebo@eto.ericsson.se ^ | Ericsson AS., N-1788 Halden | Phone: +47 67 25 09 39 | | with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer; | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-24 13:55 ` Frode Tenneboe @ 2003-04-28 16:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-28 17:28 ` Preben Randhol 2003-04-29 17:40 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-28 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Frode Tenneboe wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote: > >>free, I think that the only way this will work is we'll end up >>using two forms of email on the Internet: > >> 1) Traditional email, which permits unsolicited mail (port 25); >> which will continually battle with spam filters and such. >> 2) A newer "solicited only" email system (port 26?) > > The second form (or close) is being explored in some form right now: > http://www.networkadvertising.org/espc/042303lumos.asp > > -Frode It is good to see that people are working on "solutions", rather than more "filter techniques". The only thing about this solution I question is that verifying the sender only addresses part of the problem. The problem will still continue, as hackers use hijacked email accounts to spam others with porn and other offensive email (presumably, these will still authenticate as senders). For my kids, _I_ want solicited only email. So will many other parents. Probably many grandmothers etc., will want the same. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-28 16:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-28 17:28 ` Preben Randhol 2003-04-28 19:53 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-29 17:40 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-04-28 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > For my kids, _I_ want solicited only email. So will many > other parents. Probably many grandmothers etc., will > want the same. Not only email, but also web-site control I guess? That is of course another problem. -- Preben Randhol http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-28 17:28 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-04-28 19:53 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-29 6:14 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-28 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam-proof e-mail ? I was rather suspicious of such a claim when made on a website named "networkadvertising" Then I read further: The Email Service Provider Coalition (ESPC) was formed in November 2002 by the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) to fight spam while protecting the delivery of legitimate email. The ESPC is comprised of over 30 members including aQuantive, Blue Dolphin, Digital Impact, DoubleClick, Experian, and iMakeNews. The ESPC members have recognized the need for strong spam solutions that ensure the delivery of legitimate email. .... DoubleClick and Experian are on my filter list for the amount of spam I used to get from them! Let the fox guard the henhouse! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-28 19:53 ` Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-29 6:14 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-04-29 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Wesley Groleau wrote: > DoubleClick and Experian are on my filter list for the amount > of spam I used to get from them! Let the fox guard the henhouse! Yes, Doubleclick is also in my web filter (privoxy - http://www.privoxy.org/). I guess they want to get rid of Joe the Spammer, but as long as you pay good money you can spam people through this "new" system. -- Preben Randhol http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-28 16:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-28 17:28 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-04-29 17:40 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-04-29 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote: : as hackers use hijacked email accounts ... Uhm, crackers, please, if you don't mind. I wish there were a hacker at one of our customers' site. We've had to explain how to set up an MTA on their Un*x system... Surely that wouldn't have been necessary in the presence of a hacker, and it suggests some questions about how well the site is protected from crackers. -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 12:53 If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Preben Randhol 2003-04-16 13:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-04-16 17:52 ` Jano 2003-04-16 18:43 ` Wesley Groleau ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Jano @ 2003-04-16 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol dice... > Two implementations in C (ugg!) and Perl (ugg!!) > > http://www.nongnu.org/ifile/ > http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/ > > One in python: > > http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/ Another one (perl too): http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ That's the one I use and it works great. -- ------------------------- Jano 402450.at.cepsz.unizar.es ------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 12:53 If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Preben Randhol 2003-04-16 13:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 17:52 ` Jano @ 2003-04-16 18:43 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-16 20:03 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-16 20:01 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-30 12:44 ` Frank 4 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-16 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote: > Then perhaps a Bayesian Spam filter could be a nice challenge. Or if > somebody are heading a university student project/diploma work it could > a suitable project? I've thought about doing a variation of this, but I just don't have the time. I really believe that if enough people did this, spam would cease to be profitable and die out. Unfortunately, there will never be enough people doing it, for the same reasons as why most of us are going to be informed once a year for the rest of our lives that there's going to be a five-cent tax on every e-mail (maybe that would be a good thing--it's cheaper than a stamp and it would stop spam). A bayesian filter would keep its user from seeing the spam. There are already numerous decent implementations of the idea, so one in Ada would not go very far, _unless_ it offered a significant new feature. In my opinion, this new feature would be for the statistical database to be kept ON THE SERVER. Once your database got built up enough to reject spams, you not only would not see it, you would save the bandwidth of pulling it down to your computer. Bayesian filters must scan the whole message, thus current implementations require you to download the whole message. If an e-mail client or plugin was capable of sending "Message ID #$%^#$%^# was spam" and the server could update the database accordingly, that would be really cool. If someone has the time to tackle a project like this, I'd be happy to share some of the details I've already thought of. Unfortunately, it would require the cooperation of the ISP to run it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 18:43 ` Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-16 20:03 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-16 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Wesley Groleau wrote in message ... >If an e-mail client or plugin was capable of >sending "Message ID #$%^#$%^# was spam" and >the server could update the database accordingly, >that would be really cool. I just use a special mailbox on the server for this. That's a lot easier than hoping to get every e-mail client to do something. Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 12:53 If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Preben Randhol ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-16 18:43 ` Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-16 20:01 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-16 23:21 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-16 23:26 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-30 12:44 ` Frank 4 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-16 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote in message ... >Then perhaps a Bayesian Spam filter could be a nice challenge. Or if >somebody are heading a university student project/diploma work it could >a suitable project? What kind of spam filter are you talking about? A filter for a server is different in a number of ways than a filter for a mail client. And a filter for an ISP or large company is different than a filter for a tiny organization. That said, an anti-spam filter written in Ada already exists: it's called Trash Finder, and it works with the IMS mail server on Windows. I haven't publized it here precisely because no one here can use it. :-) It is of course 100% in Ada, and it filters for literally dozens of criteria -- after fully decoding and unfolding the message (a significant percentage of spam is encoded). Among other things, it filters on character sets, attachment types, violations of RFCs in the mail format (spammers have a hard time following RFCs), specific HTML features (forms, scripts, graphics, text outside of the markup, etc.), From, To, Subjects, Text (without the HTML markup, which often can be used to hide things), HTML markup, and (most recently) domains in URLs given either in HTML markup or text. It filters about 98% of the incoming spam on my system. You'll note that there isn't a Bayesian filter. That has always been on the 'wish list', but there are variety of reasons I no longer expect it to be very effective. I study a lot of spam each week in an effort to find more ways to automatically discard spam without discarding good mail, so I think I'm reasonably qualified to talk on this subject. First of all, Bayesian filters are most effective the closer to the client that they are. On the server, they have to filter everyones mail, and that necessarily means that they have to let more stuff through. For example, 'casino' would be very unlikely to appear in my mail, but an ISP could hardly block mail containing that word. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to put such a filter on the server. Secondly, most of the effectiveness of Bayesian filters have come from the fact that they include the HTML markup in the text stored. Spammers have figured that out, and are now sending a lot more plain text messages. I've seen a number of spammers that as a matter of course send an HTML version and a text version of the same message a couple of days apart. Thirdly, spammers have started sending random strings of junk (usually placed so it won't display) as part of messages. Depending on the filter, that can make a lot of messages look "OK" to a Bayesian filter, because they often treat unknown words as unlikely to be spam. Even if they don't do that, they tend to clog up the database with lots of junk 'words'. Fourthly, I've been getting quite a few very short messages advertising porn and other stuff. These are just too short (usually only 5-8 words and a unique URL) to be caught by any filter. Lastly, a Bayesian filter can never be accurate enough to entrust with discarding of messages, at least for me. I'll only trust a pinpoint filter for that, such as discarding names that include a particular URL. Even so, I'm discarding 70% of the incoming spam here. My preference is to filter on the URLs (and in some cases, phone numbers and snail mail addresses) that the spammers use for contacts. They can hardly not provide a contact, and it often is something that would never appear in a real mail. (Do you want mail that links to "beefupyourp---s.com"? - hyphens inserted as this is a family newsgroup. :-) It's possible to automate handling of links as well. Anyway, I'm no longer planning to write a Bayesian filter. I'm still thinking about an unknown word filter, but I expect that to be high-maintenance (and thus not for everyone). Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 20:01 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-16 23:21 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 8:05 ` AG 2003-04-17 22:58 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-16 23:26 ` Wesley Groleau 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-16 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw) > First of all, Bayesian filters are most effective the closer to the > client that they are. On the server, they have to filter everyones mail, > and that necessarily means that they have to let more stuff through. For Not necessarily. The one I proposed does the filtering on the server based on feedback from the addressee. In other word, each user would have his/her dedicated statistical DB. > Secondly, most of the effectiveness of Bayesian filters have come from > the fact that they include the HTML markup in the text stored. Spammers > have figured that out, and are now sending a lot more plain text > Thirdly, spammers have started sending random strings of junk (usually > placed so it won't display) as part of messages. Depending on the > filter, that can make a lot of messages look "OK" to a Bayesian filter, > because they often treat unknown words as unlikely to be spam. Even if > they don't do that, they tend to clog up the database with lots of junk > 'words'. The way some implementations work, these tricks won't work. For example, Paul Graham's algorithm only looks at the strongest indicators at both ends. If a spammer puts in a lot of random words, they won't be consistent and will not have much weight. If the spammer puts in the same words all the time, and these words are common in non-spam, they will not be srong indicators and won't be used. If they are not common in non-spam, they will catch the spam. > Lastly, a Bayesian filter can never be accurate enough to entrust with > discarding of messages, at least for me. I'll only trust a pinpoint > filter for that, such as discarding names that include a particular URL. > Even so, I'm discarding 70% of the incoming spam here. My _limited_ tests with a Bayesian filter had no false negatives or false positives. And the 'net being what it is, an occasional message gets lost somehow anyway. Besides, no filter is required to discard anything. I would just like the presumed spam messages stored on the server until I say trash them (or until I ignore them for some length of time). Ideally, have the filter put the subject lines in an e-mail to me, containing a CGI form with two choices: - trash all of them - send a individual choice message The individual choice message would let me select specific messages to be kept. > My preference is to filter on the URLs (and in some cases, phone numbers > and snail mail addresses) that the spammers use for contacts. But a Bayesian filter can do stats on that as well. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 23:21 ` Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-17 8:05 ` AG 2003-04-17 16:52 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 22:58 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2003-04-17 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw) "Wesley Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:VZ2dndUZ8_77eACjXTWcpA@gbronline.com... > > > First of all, Bayesian filters are most effective the closer to the > > client that they are. On the server, they have to filter everyones mail, > > and that necessarily means that they have to let more stuff through. For > > Not necessarily. The one I proposed does the filtering on the server > based on feedback from the addressee. In other word, each user would > have his/her dedicated statistical DB. Hold on a second. Not to mention that you are putting a potentially huge strain on the ISP provider (a dedicated DB per user) you are also putting the info in that database in a bit of a wrong place. In effect, you are telling your ISP what you are or are not intersted in. The temptation may be strong to on-sell that info to someone ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-17 8:05 ` AG @ 2003-04-17 16:52 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 22:02 ` AG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-17 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) >>Not necessarily. The one I proposed does the filtering on the server >>based on feedback from the addressee. In other word, each user would >>have his/her dedicated statistical DB. > > Hold on a second. Not to mention that you are putting > a potentially huge strain on the ISP provider (a dedicated Disk space or bandwidth--which is the greater strain? > DB per user) you are also putting the info in that database > in a bit of a wrong place. In effect, you are telling your > ISP what you are or are not intersted in. The temptation > may be strong to on-sell that info to someone ... Ouch! Good point! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-17 16:52 ` Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-17 22:02 ` AG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2003-04-17 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) "Wesley Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:tWWdneoWEM40RgOjXTWcqg@gbronline.com... > > Hold on a second. Not to mention that you are putting > > a potentially huge strain on the ISP provider (a dedicated > > Disk space or bandwidth--which is the greater strain? > > > DB per user) I don't think the question above is related: ISP has already spent both disk space and bandwidth to download some spam on their servers. Presumably you didn't pay for that except via your normal subscription fees. Now, assuming you pay for download (per Mb or whatever) the ISP should be more than happy to send all that junk to you and recover the costs. Even if not, the costs are already incurred and will be passed on to you (as a customer) one way or another. But now you want that ISP to allocate some more disk space (and bandwidth, and associated software and maintenance) to make sure they can't. Yeah, right :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 23:21 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 8:05 ` AG @ 2003-04-17 22:58 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-19 6:28 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-17 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Wesley Groleau wrote in message ... >> First of all, Bayesian filters are most effective the closer to the >> client that they are. On the server, they have to filter everyones mail, >> and that necessarily means that they have to let more stuff through. For > >Not necessarily. The one I proposed does the filtering on the server >based on feedback from the addressee. In other word, each user would >have his/her dedicated statistical DB. I don't think that would work. The word list for the AdaIC search engine is 270,000 words, and it takes up 6 MB. The database of counts for a Bayesian filter would take at least two counters (presumably 32-bit, although 24-bit would probably be enough) for each word. That's at least 2MB. The word list could be shared, but certainly the DB could not. (And I'd expect the word list to be much larger than that, given the random words and the puree approach of the Graham filter). For a very small server like mine, that might not be a big deal. But some of the people running Trash Finder have servers handling 50,000 messages per day with more than 1,000 users. The overhead of scanning and scoring all of those messages would be very high, especially as the DBs would be too large to stay in the machine's cache. >> Thirdly, spammers have started sending random strings of junk (usually >> placed so it won't display) as part of messages. Depending on the >> filter, that can make a lot of messages look "OK" to a Bayesian filter, >> because they often treat unknown words as unlikely to be spam. Even if >> they don't do that, they tend to clog up the database with lots of junk >> 'words'. > >The way some implementations work, these tricks won't work. >For example, Paul Graham's algorithm only looks at the strongest >indicators at both ends. If a spammer puts in a lot of random >words, they won't be consistent and will not have much weight. >If the spammer puts in the same words all the time, and these words >are common in non-spam, they will not be srong indicators and >won't be used. If they are not common in non-spam, they will >catch the spam. That might prevent passing spam, but it does nothing to avoid the overhead. The problem is in order to find out the strongest indicator, you have to score every 'word' in the message. When a lot of trash words are in the message, you have to allocate new words and new counters for them; and when there are a lot of such messages, the size of the DB grows rapidly. (We saw this happen in the search engine when we accidentially indexed some Unix .lib files.) That adds overhead; a lot of overhead for a filter like mine which gets invoked on each message individually. (Writing out the word list each time is expensive.) >> Lastly, a Bayesian filter can never be accurate enough to entrust with >> discarding of messages, at least for me. I'll only trust a pinpoint >> filter for that, such as discarding names that include a particular URL. >> Even so, I'm discarding 70% of the incoming spam here. > >My _limited_ tests with a Bayesian filter had no false negatives or false >positives. And the 'net being what it is, an occasional message gets >lost somehow anyway. Besides, no filter is required to discard anything. > >I would just like the presumed spam messages stored on the server >until I say trash them (or until I ignore them for some length >of time). I used to do that, but I discovered that I was spending more than an hour each Monday and a half hour every other day going through them and getting rid of them. That's silly. I don't mind occassionally quarentining a good message, but deleting it is a no-no. For servers that get 50,000 messages a day, manual deletion of the 20% spam is impractical. >> My preference is to filter on the URLs (and in some cases, phone numbers >> and snail mail addresses) that the spammers use for contacts. > >But a Bayesian filter can do stats on that as well. Only with a lot more overhead and less precision. And overhead matters if your processing 50,000 messages a day (or even 500 on a machine that's also running a search engine, web server, and soon, a software update server). The Graham filter is especially bad with overhead, because it just uses everything about the message as it comes. A lot of spam is encoded in various ways, and that will increase the number of versions of the same word a lot. And if the spammer hits on a new encoding, the spam will go through. Another overhead issue with Bayesian filters is that you have to scan the message twice, once to classify it, and a second time to store the counters appropriately. (And you have to have a way to handle false positives and false negatives.) You can trade off memory vs. cpu time in various ways, but it would be preferable to do neither. Anyway, its best that multiple approaches be used to filter spam. If everybody did it the same way, the spammers would find it easier to get their trash though!! Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-17 22:58 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-19 6:28 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2003-04-23 19:32 ` Robert C. Leif 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2003-04-19 6:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Randy Brukardt wrote: > That might prevent passing spam, but it does nothing to avoid the > overhead. The problem is in order to find out the strongest indicator, > you have to score every 'word' in the message. When a lot of trash words > are in the message, you have to allocate new words and new counters for > them; and when there are a lot of such messages, the size of the DB > grows rapidly. (We saw this happen in the search engine when we > accidentially indexed some Unix .lib files.) That adds overhead; a lot > of overhead for a filter like mine which gets invoked on each message > individually. (Writing out the word list each time is expensive.) Why not do it another way: Check all URL in the message. If they point to a know porn/spam server, mark it as suspect. Then do some processing on what is left of the text. One could also obtain some sort of unique signature from the mail. Then compare that to other messages received. If a lot of messages have the same signature, then they are likely to be spam. Known mailing lists will of course be excluded. The only problem is to generate a signature that is not trivial to evade. Preferably there should be a number of signatures algorithms to choose from, so that it becomes difficult to optimize the mail for all of them since the spammer can't know which algorithm is used any given day or hour. The algorithm would of course be chosen arbitrarily at each site. greetings, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* RE: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-19 6:28 ` Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2003-04-23 19:32 ` Robert C. Leif 2003-04-24 1:35 ` Wesley Groleau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Robert C. Leif @ 2003-04-23 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway' Unfortunately, the utility of a spam filter depends to a very large extent on the domain knowledge of its creators. Thus, it is a poor choice for an Ada software engineering project. For instance, in pattern recognition there is a well known balance between false positives and false negatives. As one goes up, the other goes down. One approach that has worked for other projects is to order the messages in terms of probability that they are Spam with high probability spam being at the bottom of the list. If anyone is serious about making a commercial product, look into Xforms development and the use of Xforms with Ada. The present Ada screen generators could be reused for this purpose. Since Microsoft appears to NOT be following the W3C XForms standard, this offers a chance to compete. Bob Leif -----Original Message----- From: Tarjei T. Jensen [mailto:tarjei@online.no] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:29 PM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Randy Brukardt wrote: > That might prevent passing spam, but it does nothing to avoid the > overhead. The problem is in order to find out the strongest indicator, > you have to score every 'word' in the message. When a lot of trash words > are in the message, you have to allocate new words and new counters for > them; and when there are a lot of such messages, the size of the DB > grows rapidly. (We saw this happen in the search engine when we > accidentially indexed some Unix .lib files.) That adds overhead; a lot > of overhead for a filter like mine which gets invoked on each message > individually. (Writing out the word list each time is expensive.) Why not do it another way: Check all URL in the message. If they point to a know porn/spam server, mark it as suspect. Then do some processing on what is left of the text. One could also obtain some sort of unique signature from the mail. Then compare that to other messages received. If a lot of messages have the same signature, then they are likely to be spam. Known mailing lists will of course be excluded. The only problem is to generate a signature that is not trivial to evade. Preferably there should be a number of signatures algorithms to choose from, so that it becomes difficult to optimize the mail for all of them since the spammer can't know which algorithm is used any given day or hour. The algorithm would of course be chosen arbitrarily at each site. greetings, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-23 19:32 ` Robert C. Leif @ 2003-04-24 1:35 ` Wesley Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-24 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw) > Ada software engineering project. For instance, in pattern recognition there > is a well known balance between false positives and false negatives. As one > goes up, the other goes down. One approach that has worked for other No doubt that with many algorithms, a parameter change that decreases false negatives will increase false positives and vice versa. This is not necessarily true of a change in _algorithm_ It is quite conceivable that one algorithm might reduce _both_ compared to another algorithm. It is also true that with some algorithms, one can determine the reason for a false positive and add an explicit test for that reason, thereby reducing false positives with no change in false negatives. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 20:01 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-16 23:21 ` Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-16 23:26 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 22:28 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-16 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Randy Brukardt wrote: > That said, an anti-spam filter written in Ada already exists: it's > called Trash Finder, and it works with the IMS mail server on Windows. I > haven't publized it here precisely because no one here can use it. :-) perhaps no one "here" but I have a friend with few computer skills who teaches at a college in Canada, uses IMS, and gets tons of spam. (I saw her in box when she stopped at our house on travel to check her mail. Not a pretty sight.) Is Trash Finder difficult to set up? (I'm not sure the admins at TWU would be willing to tolerate anything difficult) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 23:26 ` Wesley Groleau @ 2003-04-17 22:28 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-17 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Wesley Groleau wrote in message ... >Randy Brukardt wrote: >> That said, an anti-spam filter written in Ada already exists: it's >> called Trash Finder, and it works with the IMS mail server on Windows. I >> haven't publized it here precisely because no one here can use it. :-) > >perhaps no one "here" but I have a friend with few computer skills >who teaches at a college in Canada, uses IMS, and gets tons of spam. >(I saw her in box when she stopped at our house on travel to check >her mail. Not a pretty sight.) > >Is Trash Finder difficult to set up? (I'm not sure the >admins at TWU would be willing to tolerate anything difficult) No, just add it to the list of plugins and bounce the services. To be most effective, it needs some filter patterns entered (the domains of persistent spammers), but there is a nice GUI (written in Claw, of course) for doing that. And it will get a lot of junk out-of-the-box. Of course, Trash Finder has been publicized many times on the IMS-Users mailing list. Your friend's admin ought to already be on it, because its the only way to find out about the latest problems and there fixes. Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what 2003-04-16 12:53 If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Preben Randhol ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-04-16 20:01 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2003-04-30 12:44 ` Frank 2003-04-30 19:59 ` Free SVG tools Nick Roberts 4 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Frank @ 2003-04-30 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) A while a go I searched for a free tool to draw SVG graphics with, without being able to find any - I would need to pay for this specific option. Unless I have missed a very simple solution :-) a SVG editor/tool could be an idea too. Frank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Free SVG tools 2003-04-30 12:44 ` Frank @ 2003-04-30 19:59 ` Nick Roberts 2003-05-02 4:54 ` Steve Bowen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2003-04-30 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) "Frank" <franjoe@frisurf.no> wrote in message news:3eafc514@news.wineasy.se... > A while a go I searched for a free tool to draw SVG graphics with, > without being able to find any - I would need to pay for this specific > option. Unless I have missed a very simple solution :-) a SVG editor/ > tool could be an idea too. I am not aware of any free SVG editing tools as such, but: * I believe there are a number of free graphic drawing programs available which (purport to) export in SVG format. How good any of them are I cannot avouch. * Since SVG is just an XML profile, it is quite possible to edit it in a text editor. I have created simple but effective (I hope ;-) drawings this way, and it is possible to control and optimise the drawings more than mechanical methods can normally achieve. * If you're handy at programming (e.g. in Ada ;-) it's quite possible to 'roll your own' specialised generator. Sometimes this can work way better then any general CAD, drawing, or art program, but it can take a bit of patience. * Theoretically it should be possible to use XSLT tools to generate SVG. Not sure how practical an idea this is in reality. (Saxon is cool.) Just some suggestions. [Cross-posted! Redirect if replying!] -- Nick Roberts Jabber: debater@charente.de [ICQ: 159718630] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Free SVG tools 2003-04-30 19:59 ` Free SVG tools Nick Roberts @ 2003-05-02 4:54 ` Steve Bowen 2003-05-02 20:12 ` Martin Holmes 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Steve Bowen @ 2003-05-02 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi Did you take a look at: http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ > Amaya started as an HTML + CSS style sheets editor. Since that time it was extended to support XML and an increasing number of XML applications such as the XHTML family, MathML, and SVG. It allows all those vocabularies to be edited simultaneously in compound documents. -- steve http://www.skeeter-s.com/svg SVG examples for Mozilla unplugged. N 48� 18' 30.0" E 16� 28' 30.0" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Free SVG tools 2003-05-02 4:54 ` Steve Bowen @ 2003-05-02 20:12 ` Martin Holmes 2003-05-03 18:54 ` Steve Bowen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Martin Holmes @ 2003-05-02 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) On 5/1/2003 9:54 PM, the Minister of Certain Things released a statement to the following effect: > Hi > > Did you take a look at: > http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ > >> Amaya started as an HTML + CSS style sheets editor. Since that time it >> was extended to support XML and an increasing number of XML >> applications such as the XHTML family, MathML, and SVG. It allows all >> those vocabularies to be edited simultaneously in compound documents. I really wish Amaya could handle JavaScript. Bit much to ask, perhaps, but these days I almost never make static documents of any kind; most reconfigure themselves in response to user actions through script, so Amaya isn't all that useful. Cheers, Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Free SVG tools 2003-05-02 20:12 ` Martin Holmes @ 2003-05-03 18:54 ` Steve Bowen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Steve Bowen @ 2003-05-03 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Holmes wrote: > On 5/1/2003 9:54 PM, the Minister of Certain Things released a statement > to the following effect: > >> Hi >> >> Did you take a look at: >> http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ >> >>> Amaya started as an HTML + CSS style sheets editor. Since that time >>> it was extended to support XML and an increasing number of XML >>> applications such as the XHTML family, MathML, and SVG. It allows all >>> those vocabularies to be edited simultaneously in compound documents. > > > I really wish Amaya could handle JavaScript. Bit much to ask, perhaps, > but these days I almost never make static documents of any kind; most > reconfigure themselves in response to user actions through script, so > Amaya isn't all that useful. > > Cheers, > Martin > Hi Martin Perhaps so, however the starter of the thread was asking for a free SVG editor and Amaya popped into my head because of the WYSIWYW(last 'W' is for wish ;-) ) Don't have it installed myself, last time I installed it was at a number 4 level and now it is an 8x or so. Here is a quote as to what they say it can do. > The current release, Amaya 8.0, supports HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, XHTML Basic, XHTML 1.1, HTTP 1.1, MathML 2.0, many CSS 2 features, a SVG support. (transformation, transparency, and SMIL animation on OpenGL platforms) and if there 'is' a good helping of SMIL then as far as SVG goes how can one talk of static? -- steve http://www.skeeter-s.com/svg SVG examples for Mozilla unplugged. N 48� 18' 30.0" E 16� 28' 30.0" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-03 18:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 65+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-04-16 12:53 If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Preben Randhol 2003-04-16 13:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 16:10 ` rd 2003-04-16 16:34 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 17:00 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-16 17:43 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-16 18:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-16 18:48 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada tmoran 2003-04-16 20:58 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-04-17 16:51 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 21:54 ` Robert A Duff 2003-04-17 22:39 ` AG 2003-04-18 8:27 ` Preben Randhol 2003-04-17 23:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Randy Brukardt 2003-04-18 0:06 ` AG 2003-04-18 0:32 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 0:48 ` AG 2003-04-18 2:10 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 3:13 ` AG 2003-04-18 4:50 ` tmoran 2003-04-18 11:26 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-18 11:23 ` Larry Kilgallen [not found] ` <g3Kna.5120$mZ4.89596@news.xtra.co.nzOrganization: LJK Software <JKMUgN4L70TN@eisner.encompasserve.org> 2003-04-19 6:36 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2003-04-21 18:50 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-18 7:32 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2003-04-18 11:32 ` Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-19 4:45 ` [way off-topic] A new spammer is born? Wesley Groleau 2003-04-19 20:10 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Adabut Georg Bauhaus 2003-04-19 21:15 ` AG 2003-04-20 15:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-04-21 3:33 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-16 19:19 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada Larry Kilgallen 2003-04-16 21:38 ` SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada butdo not know what) rd 2003-04-16 22:03 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-17 0:16 ` rd 2003-04-17 16:59 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-17 22:02 ` Robert A Duff 2003-04-16 19:16 ` If anybody wants to make something in Ada but do not know what Pascal Obry 2003-04-16 19:42 ` Samuel Tardieu 2003-04-24 13:55 ` Frode Tenneboe 2003-04-28 16:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-04-28 17:28 ` Preben Randhol 2003-04-28 19:53 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-29 6:14 ` Preben Randhol 2003-04-29 17:40 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-04-16 17:52 ` Jano 2003-04-16 18:43 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-16 20:03 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-16 20:01 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-16 23:21 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 8:05 ` AG 2003-04-17 16:52 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 22:02 ` AG 2003-04-17 22:58 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-19 6:28 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2003-04-23 19:32 ` Robert C. Leif 2003-04-24 1:35 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-16 23:26 ` Wesley Groleau 2003-04-17 22:28 ` Randy Brukardt 2003-04-30 12:44 ` Frank 2003-04-30 19:59 ` Free SVG tools Nick Roberts 2003-05-02 4:54 ` Steve Bowen 2003-05-02 20:12 ` Martin Holmes 2003-05-03 18:54 ` Steve Bowen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox