Why Public Email Needs a Police Force 133
jfruhlinger writes "Those of us who had email addresses in the early days of the Internet age remember sending notes to webmaster email addresses to report malicious email behavior — and actually getting a response back. But today, a huge majority of mail comes from public services like Gmail or Yahoo mail, and getting anyone at those companies to take responsibility for abusive users is nearly impossible. 'If they could agree on a third-party service that could be the receptacle on a 24/7 basis for rapid account suspension, the 419 Fraud problem might dwindle down to a trickle quickly. It would take trust among the email providers to do this, but it would also alleviate big problems that law enforcement officials are usually unable to handle. Call them the email cops.'"
Cyber police? (Score:3, Funny)
So now you can ACTUALLY report people to the cyber police?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless the person who is looking for help is friends with the police, then something will happen even if the accused didn't even come close to doing anything wrong.
[2]Freedom of speech but only when I agree with it (Score:2)
Unless there's a serious sanction[1] for making false complaints it will be abused to enforce FOSBOWIAWI[2].
It should be the same for DMCA takedowns and some patent claims too.
[1] jail time, or a ban ten times as long as the falsely accused would have got.
If he gets his way, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's focusing on 419 scams. He wants an instant (or almost instant) way to shut down the accounts that the 419 scammers use.
Which means either an automated system (yeah, how'd you like your account killed because of something you posted on /. that someone took offense to)
or
A staff monitoring the abuse@ and postmaster@ accounts for the various email systems around the clock, every single day.
And what would this accomplish?
It would save the gullible people from themselves. Maybe. As long as the scammers didn't target their emails with enough different reply_to addresses to bypass this.
I'm not getting a very good feeling for this guy's technical credentials.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we know the government should be babysitting our email. They should protect us from having to click delete on advertising that might trick us. "Please, o benevolent governments of the world, save us from being stupid."
His technical credentials may be crap, but he'll have a hard time flushing those away as his morals have filled the septic tank.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm supposed to give up my privacy because idiots get viruses? That's attacking the wrong problem.
Secure the failing systems, or if they can't be secured, the ISP's should isolate them until they stop emitting spam or other automated attacks. But the problem's not with my email.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I think we're getting entirely too concerned with protecting people from themselves. This is an innocuous method for protecting the morons, but there have been other proposals that are much more sinister (and not even remotely helpful to anyone but corporations and governments..)
The automated system sounds more palatable to people who hate the free speech that the internet gives certain demographics. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who comes up with these stupid fucking ideas? How would these email police stop Russian or Chinese spammers? How would it prevent spam being spread by botnets? To put it bluntly the author is a fucking retard.
Retarded idea indeed. (Score:2)
The spam I get uses forged headers anyway, and was sent from botnets.
So even if abuse@(yahoo|gmail|hotmail|whatever) would cooperate, there is nothing they can do about a bot sending directly to the recipient's server with a fake From: header.
All this plan could accomplish would be to suspend perfectly innocent email accounts from people who were unlucky that their address was used in spam headers.
Re: (Score:2)
The spam I get uses forged headers anyway, and was sent from botnets.
So even if abuse@(yahoo|gmail|hotmail|whatever) would cooperate, there is nothing they can do about a bot sending directly to the recipient's server with a fake From: header.
Almost all the spam I receive (but there's damn little of it) also has forged headers, usually including the From:, Return-path: and Received: fields, and often an X-Originating-IP: field also. However, a perusal of the headers usually reveals the true origin of the spam, usually an IP address in China or the US, or some compromised mail server. If you learn to parse the headers, you can usually spot where the spam really originated, even if the header contains a number of forged fields...
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, most likely a retard who fell for some internet scam. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
PULL OVER POSTER
I am an IRC COP.
Do you know you were downloading at 5Mb/s in a 2 Mb/s zone?!
Also, your hard drive activity light is busted, son. *smash*
Re: (Score:2)
Even to postulate such a thing as cyberpolice for email shows the utter moronic mindset of those making the suggestion or agreeing to it.
First we already have laws covering it. Second it is akin to giving poice authority to the illiterate. How on earth can we trust anyone willing to support the likes of ACTA or the PROTECT IP Act. Utter morons. All of them.
Please complete the form (Score:5, Interesting)
craphound.com [craphound.com]
Re:Please complete the form (Score:5, Funny)
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(X) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(X) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
postmaster@ (Score:5, Informative)
Those of us who had email addresses in the early days of the Internet age remember sending notes to webmaster email addresses to report malicious email behavior
Webmaster@ will get you the webmaster.
Postmaster@ will get you the postmaster.
They might be the same person but the RFC states these address have to resolve to a human. If they don't with gmail, yahoomail, or whatever they these sites should be listed on rfc-ignorant.
Email police? No, won't work. What happened to that standard spam solution form slashdot used to use?
Re: (Score:1)
Neither of those are necessarily set up. It doesn't matter what RFCs state, the people responsible for servers don't have to bother handle email coming in, and many obviously don't. Try emailing them sometime, count the bounces.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of those are necessarily set up. It doesn't matter what RFCs state, the people responsible for servers don't have to bother handle email coming in, and many obviously don't. Try emailing them sometime, count the bounces.
It matters for everyone who sets up mail servers correctly. If I find a big domain has a broken postmaster@ address I submit it to rfc-ignorant and mail whatever contact address I can find at that domain. You are right about them not caring, I rarely get a reply and when I do it's often from someone with no technical skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Good and necessary answer. Don't forget abuse@ for all kinds of bad behaviour, not just email.
And hostmaster@ for host related matters. I was trying to correct the summary not provide a full list of RFC mandated email addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had a dollar for every item of spam sent to postmaster, webmaster, and yes even abuse @ every domain for which I host e-mail, I probably could buy a seat in the US Senate. At least in the House. Sorry, but those addresses go to /dev/null; I am humanly unable to comply.
I wish it were still the 1980s, when "the RFC states" meant something, a mostly-benign cabal held sway over the backbone, and a person or company could conceivably get kicked off the internet (and make it stick for a while) if it was cl
You're wrong (Score:2)
Here is the rfc in question: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321 [ietf.org]
It requires the server to accept mail for postmaster, it does not require it to deliver it to anyone.
Re: (Score:1)
The RFC you mention is 2142 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2142 [ietf.org].
Another one which is worth mentioning here is the much more recent RFC 5965 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5965 [ietf.org] which describes a format for email reports which could both be human- or machine-read. This could help speed up the processing of the complaints, and cluster those about the same address.
However, the big problem would be to get operators to actually use these formats, cooperate, or recognise an external auditing entity.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't receive a response the chances are good that you can just blacklist the domain. Legitimate domains typically have somebody that's going to respond to those sorts of emails, the exceptions being cases where it's a personal domain that got hijacked, in either case you can black list it and if they really need to get in touch they can get a free email address elsewhere until the black list is lifted.
Re: (Score:3)
They might be the same person but the RFC states these address have to resolve to a human. If they don't with gmail, yahoomail, or whatever they these sites should be listed on rfc-ignorant.
So, let's say they do resolve to a human, does the RFC say they have to do anything about it?
Anyway, as a user of email - free email at that - please explain to me how I can be "abused"?
Spam? The little I get is no skin off my ass. Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, etc ... is paying for the bandwidth.
How else can one be "abused" by email?
I believe the RFC says the mail has to be delivered to a human. It doesn't say the human has to read it, be capable of understanding it, or do anything with it. It might be worth reading the actual RFCs involved to check the details but that tends to be a huge time sink.
I consider spam an abusive waste of my time. Maybe you don't, that's up to you.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, remember that RFC stands for "Request For Comment". I guess we could start some sort of RFC Police force, where people actually have to abide by RFC *proposals*, but then I wouldn't be able to use my non-compliant bats with RFC 1149. So much for internet usage after dark.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, remember that RFC stands for "Request For Comment". I guess we could start some sort of RFC Police force, where people actually have to abide by RFC *proposals*, but then I wouldn't be able to use my non-compliant bats with RFC 1149. So much for internet usage after dark.
A lot of RFC's started as proposals but some became authoritative. It's a mess finding out what you are meant to follow and what you are not. Sadly no other approach has ever worked. The whole thing is decentralized, no 'Police force' is going to work across all countries involved and even if it could work it would get quickly subverted by governments, legal systems, and big companies. Feel free to check for RFC compliant mailers with greet pauses, greylisting (which is also a RFC abuse), check HELO names,
Re: (Score:2)
How else can one be "abused" by email?
You have the wrong end of the stick, or are a troll. This response assumes the former.
The use of abuse@ email adresses is not to say that you, the recipient of the email has been abused. It is to alert the people who provide the email service that their service may be being abused by the person who sent the email.
Spam, 419 scams and phishing are all examples of mails that may be considered abusive by the people who run the email server.
no it dont (Score:4, Insightful)
enough with the voluntary fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like somebody hasn't read enough cautionary SF stories about handing control over to those "infallible" but human-designed machines.
Seriously, I remember when I was 15, thirty years ago, lecturing someone about how "computers don't make mistakes". I believe I can be forgiven my naivete on account of: I was 15, and it was thirty years ago. What's your excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't care who ya are, that's funny.
Re: (Score:2)
When you say they "guarantee to follow our rules to the tiniest detail", you're talking about infallibility. Machines make mistakes, no matter how hard we try to prevent that; only a naive child believes otherwise. Mechanisms wear out; materials corrode, transmission errors occur, sometimes the cat lives/sometimes the cat dies.
And as for your comment about me not caring about reality, I have three words for you: pot, kettle, black. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it would be more like the Gestapo. Hugely overblown reputation, any only so "successful" because people fell over each other reporting on other people they wanted out of their way.
And why should they? (Score:1)
Do police actively monitor normal mail? No? Well why the hell would they bother with email. There are already solutions in the market for things such as spam and fraud. Having an "email police" won't change anything considering how friggin easy it is to spoof emails as well as zombie networks (why do people bother trying to propose "solutions" when they don't even fully understand the technical problems). If anything, this would only increase abuse as well as reduce privacy.
Hmm, maybe that is the point of t
This will not work until... (Score:1)
...we get email tazers, email guns and email beatdowns.
And how did I manage to get through the BBS days through today without being bothered by spam. In fact, my only interaction with a spammer lead to a happy transaction to get some nice valium. I would settle for bring those days back.
waste of bandwidth/time/characters/electrons (Score:1)
Without doubt the most stupid thing on slashdot today. So far.
Re: (Score:3)
Without doubt the most stupid thing on slashdot today. So far.
"Day ain't over yet."
policing won't work. (Score:3)
It's a lot easier to put giant IP blocks on your ban list for countries like China, Cyprus, and any country at all in Africa. Of course I realize that's fairly racist and geo-centric, but the "policing" alternative just isn't feasible because it's a slippery process which would require enormous volumes of man power. There needs to be an automated mechanism. I was thinking that gmail/hotmail/yahoo/whoever could auto-append a "flag this as spam" link to all emails which users could click. This would allow email providers to know exactly which user sent it and which message it was and dramatically streamline the process or complaint rather than forcing someone to parse email headers and sort it all out. Additionally it would offer very structured data for spam complaints that would facilitate algorithmic analysis to determine whether a ban (or just throttling) might mitigate and/or outright solve the problem.
But then again, this system could also be abused.
I think what the author of the article intended was not necessarily to improve spam control but actually to being law enforcement into the issue. Unfortunately, the article is rather poorly written and seems vague and diffused. I tend to concur that more legal punishment should be involved in the realm of scams and spamming.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning all of Latvian and Russian ips have reduced the number of random exploit hammerings on my servers by 99%
Sad but true... and I dont have any users (and dont plan on getting any) from those countries anyway so why not :p
Re: (Score:2)
I just had the luxury of doing that on one of the networks I run. We block all countries but the handful that are the customers. The product is very US-centric, and has some pretty serious security concerns. It's not TS/SCI level, but it's higher than a bank.
When we blocked all but a dozen "good" countries (countries where customers have been known to access from legitimately and/or have branch offices), brute force attempts dropped down to almost nothing. Spam dropped dow
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this kind of blocking is causing those countries to become "outcasts" on the net.
Quite unfortunate, but that is how it goes. Hopefully the amount of crap coming out of those countries will drop as they become more stable.
Re: (Score:1)
"Of course I realize that's fairly racist and geo-centric,"
It's not racist. Only idiots would perceive it that way.
It IS geocentric, but who gives a fuck? I don't owe ANYONE permission to send me unsolicited email. It's all about me and fuck you, end of story.
You can already flag webmails as Spam. I'd like a "blacklist IP block" option so I never see most of them in the first place.
right... more bribable organisations (Score:2)
yeah... no.
We don't need an internet police, another organisation susceptible to politic bickering, bribes, ect.
What we need is a better, more secure way of handling certain types of traffic.
Those are not public services (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The governmental services like police, postal etc, are paid for with your tax money
Exactly! Those are public services. They are paid for by my tax dollars. The OP said that "a huge majority of mail comes from public services like Gmail or Yahoo mail." Again, they are not public services. They are run by corporations and not by the government. And, WTF are you talking about an "idiotic proposal" for? I didn't propose anything and didn't have any links in my post. All I said was email is not a public service. Did somebody forget their meds this morning?
A price to pay (Score:2)
So just keep it where it belongs, with the postmaster@*, that way the better policed operation will eventually be the most economical and successful.
just use a properiaty managed messaging system (Score:2)
like facebook, g+ or whatever.
you obviously don't want email protocol but a closed garden, maybe you'd like people to submit passport photos for access too along with proof of their career, housing, address and sexuality.
419 fraud or personalised nigeria letters would still happen in that closed garden of yours.
Re: (Score:1)
That's what he just said.
Centralized reporting (Score:2)
Abuse.net seems to be trying to move away from it, but they still offer a single-point reporting service where you can forward spam from $DOMAIN to $DOMAIN@abuse.net and they'll forward to whatever the best contact is that they know of at $DOMAIN.
"Once you've registered, when you send a message to domain-name@abuse.net, where domain-name is the name of the domain that was the source of junk e-mail or another abusive practice, the system here automatically re-mails your message to the best reporting address(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is... (Score:2)
If that gets implemented anyone can pretty much get anyone they want banned from email.
a single email from 200 or 300 of the machines in a botnet could get you banned in an instant and the mail-cops would never figure it out.
And before you say it will stop the botnets, they would just get bigger and post fewer emails per zombie so it wouldn't affect them either.
Your post advocates a (Score:1, Redundant)
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the mone
Who would pay them? (Score:2)
It's an interesting idea, but how would it be funded? Almost like a postal service for the internet. I'm trying to think of a value added service that would make users and ISPs want to sign up with the internet post office and can't think of one. There would have to some kind of fee to fund the agency and I'm not sure a reduction in spam would be enough incentive.
If the major service providers told people they had to register with the internet post office before they could send mail, how do you enforce
Account suspension (Score:4, Interesting)
"Rapid account suspension" as opposed to more deliberative approaches to account suspension? What could possibly go wrong?
It's actually far easier (Score:2)
Let the market sort it out. People who are stupid enough to get swindled out of their money will soon not be able to afford internet anymore, reducing the number of people too stupid to use it. Ahh, ain't darwinism a great thing?
No, seriously. I don't quite get it why people who combine the insanely useful traits of greed and stupidity in one person should get any protection from having both exploited. Sorry, but my pity with people who turn off their brain when facing a computer is very, very limited.
This solution is perfect! (Score:2)
No thanks (Score:2)
I would rather not have my email under the control of a 3rd party.
if i'm stupid enough to fall for a 419, then i deserve it.
Re: (Score:1)
The key to a 419 scam is that you trust when someone tells you something that is supposed to make your life a lot better, but it's not true.
This email plan is supposed to make our lives a lot better, and for it to work we just have to trust the authors or the owners of some central email servers...
gmail and yahoo have procedures for reporting spam (Score:5, Interesting)
Gmail and yahoo both sign all outgoing messages cryptographically using dkim. That means that if you get a spam claiming to be from one of their accounts, you can verify that it really is from such an account. Once you've done that, you can report it: gmail [google.com], yahoo [yahoo.com]. So if the author of TFA is complaining that this can't be accomplished by sending email to abuse@gmail.com or postmaster@gmail.com, then I suppose he has a valid complaint that they're not complying with RFCs...but...that's the way it is. It's not the end of the world. Gotta use a web interface instead. Boo hoo.
The author of TFA is upset that he can't get spamming accounts shut down instantly, 24/7. I actually don't really want an internet where any random person can get my ability to send email shut down instantly. What if it's a joe-job? What if the complaint is from one of these people who just clicks on "spam" when they don't want the mail, even when it's not spam? A much better way to handle this is to limit the number of messages per hour that can be sent from a newly created account. Then if it takes a day, or three days, to shut down a spam account, the consequences aren't that bad; the spammer can't use the account to send a million emails in 24 hours. I assume that gmail and yahoo already do this kind of rate-limiting.
What would be a huge improvement would be if the remaining big email providers other than gmail and yahoo would start using dkim. Once dkim becomes universal, we can establish actual reputations for people as spammers or non-spammers.
Virtually all the spam I get these days is from small domains. Recent examples include education-portal.com, spacesaver.com, and mg-style.net. The solution proposed by the author of TFA is to bug education-portal.com to respond to email sent to abuse@education-portal.com by deactivating jones@education-portal.com. Um, that isn't going to work, because jones works for education-portal.com, and they want him to spam me. The solution is to make dkim universal enough that people can stop accepting mail from domains that don't dkim-sign. Then education-portal.com can get an online reputation as a spammer, and everyone can start blocking them in their spam filters.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the complaint is from one of these people who just clicks on "spam" when they don't want the mail, even when it's not spam?
If I clicked on the spam button, it's spam. I don't care why you think we have a business relationship. We don't, I'm not interested.
If I buy a product online and have to register I *always* untick any "send me product updates" checkbox. If you didn't ask that question, you have no permission to send me any emails, and are thus sending me spam.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice that you always remember which buisnesses are allowed to send you newsletters.
Don't you think it's plausible that someone signs up for a newsletter, and when they get it 3 weeks later have forgotten, and mark it as "spam"? Wouldn't that be a problem with the suggested anti-spam system, especially for smaller buisnesses?
Re: (Score:1)
There are some people, and some I know that consider spam as anything they don't want to see. They might say that my first sentence is spam. Any posts they agree with are okay. none they don't. A mail list I run had a person who posted a tasteless and stupid political screed. I had several requests to "get rid of the spam that was taking over the list". One post, and it wasn't spam, just stupid. I contacted the person invo
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly enough, these paragons of what sh
Re: (Score:2)
A much better way to handle this is to limit the number of messages per hour that can be sent from a newly created account. Then if it takes a day, or three days, to shut down a spam account, the consequences aren't that bad; the spammer can't use the account to send a million emails in 24 hours. I assume that gmail and yahoo already do this kind of rate-limiting.
That wouldn't work very well. The spammer would just sign up for a lot of email accounts instead. Or rent a server, linode is like $20 for a month, and I bet you can send a lot of spam before it is shut down.
And down the slippery slope we go... (Score:1)
I will do it! (Score:2)
Just give me the top authority and immunity from any civil or criminal litigation!
No problem
Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, AIM (amongst others) are all going to get real mad when their mail all goes in the scrapper.
Then users will be mad that their mail gets dumped because their service is lame.
Then I will be out of a job.
ENFORCE the laws and regs in place, that's not going to happen either, as there is no money to be made (or tangibly saved) by doing so.
Useless laws and regs with no teeth and too many wormy lawyer
Email just needs replacing... (Score:1)
If you can't prove an identity then the emails are just bits on the wire. You might as well take people to court for the dust they create.
SMTP police? (Score:1)
Email is SMTP. There is no practically way to police it like the article describes. The author simply doesn't know how email works. What we need is a new message standard. An Advanced Mail Transfer Protocol. It should include:
1. Encryption system where mail server publish the public keys. Mail server can also hold the recipient private key. This way an email can easily be signed. My server can check signature to see if the mail really comes from whoever says is the sender.
2. Approved senders AKA friends req
Re: (Score:1)
Stopped working with IT years ago. No time to write RFC's. Always wondered why nobody fixes email instead of creating more and more advanced filters. Fix the problem, not the symptom.
The basic layout is simple. Maybe so obvious that someone has a patent on it....
Re: (Score:2)
This is an amazingly stupid idea, even for ITworld (Score:2)
Or you could just... (Score:2)
Setup your spam filters and not worry about it.
Who watches the watchmen? (Score:2)
How long would it before people use the service to get emails banned from people they don't like??
A Recipe for Denial of Service (Score:1)
This suggestion -- promptly killing someone's E-mail account without giving them time to defend themselves -- is a recipe for denial of service. All I have to do is file a complaint against someone I don't like. Zap. They have no E-mail. I don't have to prove my complaint is valid.
Hmm. Someone running a botnet could quickly eliminate all E-mail for a nation. Cyberwar!!
I'd like a job ... (Score:2)
What is this "419 Fraud problem"? (Score:2)
419 fraud isn't a problem, it's a never-ending source of hilarity.
You still get spam? (Score:2)
Use a debian spam filter [pair.com] with zen.spamhous [spamhaus.org] as the rbl and things will be nice and quiet.
Webmaster or Postmaster? (Score:1)