Ircd spam filter

[Jack L.]

Again, this would be better done with a services client.
----- Original Message -----
From: wensu <wensu at telstra.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:41:31 +1000
To: hybrid at lists.ircd-hybrid.org
Subject: Re: Ircd spam filter

> 
> write something that looks for triggers, ie an opers syntax is /ircdsnoop .spamurl.com 86400 
> 
> this'll mean the network will look for url's in private for .spamurl.com for 86400 secs, and appropriately kill, if an ip is spamming repeatedly that url then have the server gline that ip for a longer period, ie it has 3 offences, then BAM, your dead, denied access, and so on.
> 
> yes, it does, go against many people privacy concerns, but this is a "targeted" spam source that expires ...
> 
> this'll probably catch those spam gangs ...
> 
> - wensu
> 
> "This isn't a beer belly, It'a a fuel tank for a love machine"
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Adam Herscher <xref at blackened.com>
> Date: Monday, June 7, 2004 10:35 am
> Subject: Re: Ircd spam filter
> 
> > ISPs and email providers parse users private emails to filter spam 
> > (even 
> > if only to apply a probabilistic spam rating), and users reap the 
> > benefits.
> > Google's new Gmail service parses users private emails to provide 
> > targeted ad content.
> > 
> > Governments and law enforcement agencies parse users private 
> > emails, 
> > phone calls, faxes, AND irc messages to prevent crime/terrorism 
> > under 
> > the law.
> > 
> > Whether you agree or disagree with spam filtering, advertising, 
> > and/or 
> > the patriot act, bringing your own politics into the codebase is 
> > never a 
> > good idea.  Some organizations running irc servers/networks may 
> > wish to 
> > filter private messages they consider to be spam.  Others may wish 
> > to 
> > provide ad content.  Yet others may wish to provide an interface 
> > for law 
> > enforcement to gain visibility into private messages -- especially 
> > if 
> > they come in with a warrant, and are intent on doing so anyway.
> > 
> > Parsing private messages to profile or collect aggregate data may 
> > be 
> > considered useful, and less of an invasion of privacy.
> > 
> > Finally, any expectations of privacy lie with the claims made by 
> > the 
> > organization(s) running the irc server/network, not with the 
> > protocol's 
> > use of the string PRIVMSG.  Channel chatter uses PRIVMSGs -- 
> > there's 
> > certainly no expectation of privacy on a public irc channel 
> > (aren't 
> > search engines beginning to index them?)
> > 
> > - Adam
> > 
> > Jack L. wrote:
> > > I don't agree with writing a private message filter for an ircd. 
> > The ircd is a server, not a filter. Spying into people's private 
> > messages is not what an ircd is written for and personally, I 
> > would not want my private messages filtered in any way shape or 
> > form. Private messages are exactly what they are, private. 
> > Filtering everyone's messages just because some spam bot decides 
> > to ruin everything is not a good reason. That is like filtering 
> > everyone's private emails to find that spammer. It is unfortunate 
> > that people use irc to spam, but filtering private messages is not 
> > the way to go. 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Philippe <feel at feeleas.org>
> > > Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:32:02 +0200
> > > To: General IRCD-Hybrid Discussion <hybrid at lists.ircd-hybrid.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Ircd spam filter
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>Bill Bierman wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>From: hybrid-bounces at lists.ircd-hybrid.org [hybrid-
> > >>>>bounces at lists.ircd-hybrid.org] On Behalf Of Harald Paulsen
> > >>>>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 5:32 PM
> > >>>>To: General IRCD-Hybrid Discussion
> > >>>>Subject: Re: Ircd spam filter
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>><snip>
> > >>>
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Allthough I agree that it could be beneficial to have a 
> > feature like
> > >>>>that sometimes, it is a dangerous line to cross.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>1) It can and will be abused
> > >>>>2) Server operators risk loosing their common carrier-status.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>On the other hand, if one could load a module that 
> > specifically filters
> > >>>>ONE special message, #2 might be avoided. It's risky though.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>We have no business reading peoples messages, even if to 
> > protect them.
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Another good point.  Users would have to ASK for such a service 
> > to be
> > >>>provided to them.  The conclusion you draw from that is if 
> > you're going to
> > >>>require their consent, why not leave it up to them and their 
> > client to
> > >>>filter that stuff out?
> > >>>
> > >>>Bill
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>    Privacy....
> > >>    Sorry, but don't invoke privacy for this, Fyle spambot, 
> > agobot, 
> > >>fishers, etc, are more dangerous for user's privacy than this 
> > filter.>>    If an admin wants to spy private messages, he just 
> > need to lauch 
> > >>ethereal or such program.
> > >>   
> > >> > Another good point. Users would have to ASK for such a 
> > service to be
> > >>
> > >>    Of course, all users asking me every day to proctect them, 
> > and  I'm 
> > >>tired to play with additionnal services, perl script or eggdrops 
> > : bots 
> > >>are still there.
> > >>    But, perhaps you got a better solution (I'm not kidding 
> > you). ?
> > >>   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                               ~Jack~
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                       
> 




                              ~Jack~

-- 
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from www.doramail.com with 30 Megs of disk space in webhosting and e-mail storage!


Powered by Outblaze