(STEVEN)?

[Aaron]

</snip>

To do that, it'd have to do reverse lookup and an MX query..... and
then another query on the domains mail server itself to verify the
address. The problem with this is, most of the spam of late, is from
valid e-mail address's.... it's just the senders that don't actually
know it's being sent (the recent Blaster, Sobig etc etc worms being a
prime example)

Looks like a primative form of a challenge response system.
There was a bug debate in grc.spam recently about whether it's a good
idea.

--
Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)

Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[Lars O]

Does anyone have experiences using (STEVEN)?

(STEVEN) is designed to stop SPAM using advanced Artificial intelligence
that doesn't rely on key lists, key words or advanced filters. It uses
simple common sense and checks to see if the sender really exists.
http://www.softwaredevelopment.net.au/pge_steven.htm

 

[Steven Burn]

Does anyone have experiences using (STEVEN)?

</snip>

Ask my ex ;o)

(STEVEN) is designed to stop SPAM using advanced Artificial intelligence
that doesn't rely on key lists, key words or advanced filters. It uses
simple common sense and checks to see if the sender really exists.
http://www.softwaredevelopment.net.au/pge_steven.htm

</snip>

To do that, it'd have to do reverse lookup and an MX query..... and then
another query on the domains mail server itself to verify the address. The
problem with this is, most of the spam of late, is from valid e-mail
address's.... it's just the senders that don't actually know it's being sent
(the recent Blaster, Sobig etc etc worms being a prime example)

--
Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Does anyone have experiences using (STEVEN)?
Yes.

(STEVEN) is designed to stop SPAM using advanced Artificial intelligence
that doesn't rely on key lists, key words or advanced filters. It uses
simple common sense and checks to see if the sender really exists.
http://www.softwaredevelopment.net.au/pge_steven.htm

AFAIK there are very few client side challenge response programs
available. In any case this is rather a good program so far. The
author is constantly looking at ways to improve it so if you can think
of ways to make it better then post them in his "ideas" web forum.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On 20 Jan 2004 12:49:43 +0800, Aaron

Looks like a primative form of a challenge response system.

Why do you say "primitive" ? How would you change it to make it
"advanced" ?

There was a bug debate in grc.spam recently about whether it's a good
idea.

I am the one who started the thread there and I don't remember bugs
being discussed. Perhaps you meant "big debate" ?

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Aaron]

On 20 Jan 2004 12:49:43 +0800, Aaron





Why do you say "primitive" ? How would you change it to make it
"advanced" ?

See said thread on GRC.

I am the one who started the thread there

Yes, and it wasn't very well received.

and I don't remember bugs
being discussed. Perhaps you meant "big debate" ?

Yes, big. Most people didn't think challenge response systems is a good
idea, and I agree with them. Using such systems on a limited basis as part
of a layered defence against spam *might* be useful , but Certainly using
it as the main spam filtering module (which is the way STEVEN does it)
strikes me as a bad idea.






Aaron (my email is not munged!)