3 ms·
Your example doent make sense. Those who spend spam for profit will do it anyway - they dont care if tools that detect spam exist or not. In fact those tools li
by rvba 3y ago
Your example doent make sense.
Those who spend spam for profit will do it anyway - they dont care if tools that detect spam exist or not. In fact those tools limit the ability of script kiddies to enter. It is a cat and mouse game.
A homeless person can steal some electic wires and pipes and fixing it will cost a lot of money. So you say that we shouldnt fix it?
- pjdesno 3y agoThe root problem is not that I'm receiving spam emails, but that people are sending them. Symantec etc. have no business interest in getting people to stop sending spam emails. In the case of the pharma/counterfeit emails that were so common 10-15 years ago the fix was quite simple, but didn't come from the anti-spam industry - it required finding an aggrieved party (brand owners) with enough clout in the financial world. As you point out, fighting spam is an asymmetric game of whack-a-mole, where spammers can easily adapt to countermeasures. Forcing spammers to get a new merchant bank to handle their credit card transactions flips the asymmetry and makes them do all the work; as a result you no longer see spam advertising viagra. Getting rid of ransomware would be quite easy, in theory, if you could tank the value of bitcoin, since few ransomware gangs are able to collect ransom the traditional way in bags of cash. And a large fraction of other phishing attacks could be prevented by putting stricter controls on gift cards.