Challenge-response systems don't work, and only serve to annoy innocent bystanders. The only challenges I've ever recieved were in response to spam that had forged my return address. Of course, to avoid future "challenge spam" from those domains in the future I always responded in the positive, which renders them that much more ineffective.
Any system that tries to rely on sender identity or content analysis after accepting delivery from the sending system is not going to be effective. It's bad enough when poorly configured mail systems try to bounce messages to assumed sender addresses rather than rejecting them before accepting delivery. Don't add another layer of abuse on top of it. Just because you got spam is no reason to be sending email to me.
John Meissen snipped-for-privacy@aracnet.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I do the essence of challenge response right now, as many other mailing list publishers do. You (or some spammer or other idiot) writes to me. When it gets here if Spam Assassin detirmines it to be spam it goes into one file. The allegedly _legitimate_ letter writers get back an auto-ack from me, but since Spam Assassin lets so much garbage through, a lot of spammers get an auto-ack also.Because of my personal experience with this for a few years now, the auto-ack begins with the assumption you _are a spammer_ also. It asks you to (1) remove this email address from your list. (2) It tells you we are not interested at all ... (3) then it goes on to say "If you were not the writer of what I received, then someone apparently took control of your computer; please get help as needed in cleaning out the viruses, etc.
Then after a couple paragraphs at least of addressing you as though you are the spammer, or the idiot with the zombified computer, it goes on to conclude (4) "for everyone else, good netizens who wrote to me, your letter is being read and evaluated and readied for use in the Digest. Thank you for writing me." Now, is the complaint I make in (1),(2) and (3) too much of an imposition to read? I very strongly support the work of