[Tfug] Anyone using KnujOn? (was: Re: Need help with an install)

[Stephen Hooper]

On 3/29/07, rfs_lists at mac.com <rfs_lists at mac.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2007, at 9:25 pm, Stephen Hooper wrote:
>
> > On 3/29/07, rfs_lists at mac.com <rfs_lists at mac.com> wrote:
> >> See knujon.com. Anyone else signed up with KnujOn's beta? It's
> >> working as well as can be expected for my company. Given the rapidly
> >> increasing volumes of spam over the last year, we're receiving
> >> something like 50% of the volume we were a year ago.
> >
> > What were you using a year ago?
> I wasn't here. Barely nothing. Two or three employees were using Blue
> Frog. To recap, that company attempted to get spammers to conform to
> Blue Frog participants' wishes, but were hit so hard by DDoS attacks
> they had to close shop. During the DDoS, spammers stole Blue Frog
> participants' details and attempted to steal further lists of
> addresses from them using not very sophisticated phishing stuff.
>
> >> From the FAQ:
> >
> > Does it cost anything?
> > At the moment Knujon is free.
> >
> > Will it be free a year from now?
> Hm. I wonder where you got that quote from, because this is the
> current information from http://knujon.com/faq.html#newfaq28
>
> "How much is a KnujOn membership?
> "KnujOn is still free and we hope to keep the costs low if fees
> become needed. Even if we do adopt a pricing structure, there will
> always be a free component."
>
> They recently had a survey of registered users asking, among other
> things, what would be an acceptable pricing structure.
>
> > What differentiates this company from the billions of other companies
> > that are trying to reduce spam?
> Billions. Ah, your famous disparaging tone. Jolly good.
>

Ahh... the disparaging tone about the disparaging tone... jolly good! ;)

In actuality, I say billions to mean a very large number.  I believe
it common enough usage that you shouldn't read disparagement in it.
I mean...

Search two very unlikely subjects, let's "billions of noodles".  It
returns this site, where someone has written:

'll purchase any one of the billions and billions of Kurt Bestor or
Sam Cardon albums that sit collecting dust on the shelves of the Utah
used CD stores.

Do you think he literally means billions, and billions?  So maybe
three billion albums on Utah store shelves?

Still I can see why you don't like my tone, it is because you are
reading into the fact that I have not seen a single "spam" fighting
technique work well enough that I would pay for it.  Just personal
choice, but the best spam fighter I have seen so far is gmail...

> They gather evidence and report it to the appropriate authorities and
> get the spammers' domains closed down. They help law enforcement
> bring cases against spammers and fraudsters by providing technical
> evidence against them.
>

Yes, I read that.  I still don't understand how it is applied though.
They bring cases against domain owners... what domains?  The sender's
email domain?  The domain that actually carries the product?  The
domain that spread the virus?  The bank that is being "phished".

What about viri?  What has it to do with Spam?  Or is this just
general net abuse you can complain against?   Do they investigate the
virus?  Don't antiviral companies already do that?  How do they trace
it effectively?

> I have a nagging suspicion this is in the FAQ as well, just a sec...
> Ah! Yes: http://knujon.com/faq.html#faq3 Just above the bit about
> being free and always having a free component.
>

Again, that seems a little murky... and lawyerly.  I could say the
toothpaste I buy always has a "free" component.  What does that mean?
Beer?  Code?  Maybe just the reporting will remain free... Hey!  That
would be a free component!

> > What else did you do try to stop spam?
> 1. Blue Frog -- you know the story with Blue.
> 2. User education -- you know that story too.
> 3. Recommended ditching heavily spammed addresses in favour of fresh
> addresses -- still being decided.
>
> > What makes it great enough in your mind that you would actually
> > advocate it?

> Don't try to put words in my mouth Stephen -- I didn't "advocate"
> anything, but suggested it in response to Earl's poorly worded
> question. I then politely asked if anyone else was using it because
> it seemed relevant. If something better comes along, I'll go with
> that service.
>

I am sorry for putting words in your mouth, but let's examine this.
I assumed as you mentioned it in a positive context, i.e. that you
advocated it... let's see (definition of advocate) ...

1.	to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument;
recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

So back to your original email:

"It's working as well as can be expected for my company. Given the
rapidly increasing volumes of spam over the last year, we're receiving
something like 50% of the volume we were a year ago."

Which looks to me that you are writing in favor of it...  hate to be
an english nazi (in all sorts of contexts), but what would you
consider that stanza if not advocation?

You can read a disparaging tone into that.  It is a silly argument we
can continue if you like :)

> Anyway, by way of reporting how it's doing (or "What makes it great
> enough" in your words), bear in mind what I already said is in the
> context of email addresses which have been active for several years,
> given to all and sundry, and have in all likelihood been on several
> hundred if not thousand users' Window boxes running Outlook Express.
> Basically, we have a number of email addresses which to all intents
> and purposes, function as spam traps. Yet they can still be used for
> regular correspondence. This makes option #3 above difficult to justify.
>

> Further to that, KnujOn understand how filtering plays into the hands
> of the scammers -- ignoring the problem by filtering and deleting
> doesn't make the business of spamming unworkable. Reporting forensic
> evidence of illegal activities to law enforcement works. Signing up
> helps them do that; helps the law enforcement authorities do their
> jobs, and gets the spammers closed down.
>

I guess it sometimes seems that the RIAA is doing that same thing to
curb illegal activity.  Seems to work real well :}

> Take a quick look through their news page: http://knujon.com/news
>
> (I realise that talking about KnujOn in a slightly positive light on
> a public forum is going to get this email alias spammed to heck.
> You'll probably see me disappear and reappear sometime.)
>

Oh, so you were advocating it?  (again disparaging, but really, you
are tempting me so...)

> Anyway, thanks for asking. If you take it as a recommendation, that's
> your own biz.

Nah... I probably wouldn't go with it based on what I have heard:   it
would have been cool if you had been using something other than
"barely nothing", then maybe the effects could be measured better, and
I would take it as a recommendation.  I also don't like the lack of
transparency (perhaps my perception) on what this company actually
does...

Anyways thanks.