= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
rhaps0dy comments on Attention! Financial scam targeting Less Wrong users - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (92)
Today in Hacker News there's a research article speaking exactly of this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11909111
Makes me think that a possible method to mitigate spam would be to answer each email with a LSTM-generated blob of text, so the attackers are swarmed with false positives and cannot continue the attack. Of course, this would have to be implemented by the email provider.
Why?
Because LWers adopting this rule would not produce a swarm of false positives (and therefore I won't do it).
This is what I thought. But ChristianKl is right: it doesn't need to. From the first false positive you're already doing damage with almost no cost to you. Sure your address will start to receive more spam, but it will be filtered like the spam you already have is.
But having it in the ISP, or as a really popular extension, would deal a big blow to spam.
If you have an extension that sends false responses the spammers will have an incentive to avoid messageing those email addresses.
Not necessarily. There are various ways to get scale without being a big organisation. You could for example write a Thunderbird plugin that gives people who install that plugin a "Nuke Spammer" button.