Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > XML > OT: Spam

Reply
Thread Tools

OT: Spam

 
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
Roedy Green <(E-Mail Removed)> coughed up the following:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:40:47 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote or quoted
>>

>
>>
>> (E-Mail Removed)...rafterthe3.com

>
> the problem with this is SOMEBODY has to decode it for use, (and may
> not bother). If they do, then it is lying around in plaintext just
> waiting for Sven to harvest in anyone's mailbox who communicates with
> you.


Things getting harvested out of the mailboxes themselves is not that common.
But it /is/ possible, they're called viruses, which is one of the reasons I
suggest a magic word in the subject.


> One of the great charms of email addresses is they could be permanent,
> even if you moved or changed ISPs. Now the spam brats have destroyed
> that. Your main defense it to change your email address and then only
> tell selected people.
>
> I think the solution is to charge 50 cents to send an email, the money
> going to the receiver's account. For most people, it would balance
> out. If you were clever, you could get spammers to pay your rent for
> you by spamming to an account you never read. Fitting revenge.


Fair enough. $.50 means I might not ever get another dumb joke again. What
a filter! The only jokes I'd get would be the ones so damn funny that it
was worth paying half a buck to get it to me.

What's horrible is that the number of all emails that are spam is thought to
be currently around 40%, and will exceed 50% sometime in 2004.

The /count/, not the data size, FWIW.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roedy Green
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 07:23:13 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote or quoted
:

>Fair enough. $.50 means I might not ever get another dumb joke again. What
>a filter! The only jokes I'd get would be the ones so damn funny that it
>was worth paying half a buck to get it to me.


If you SHARE jokes with friends, it evens out and the net cost is 0.

There would come a moral obligation to return a joke. If you didn't,
people might finally get hint you don't find those saccharine
jokes/stories amusing.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael Borgwardt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
Roedy Green wrote:

> I think the solution is to charge 50 cents to send an email, the money
> going to the receiver's account. For most people, it would balance
> out. If you were clever, you could get spammers to pay your rent for
> you by spamming to an account you never read. Fitting revenge.


Very old, very bad idea.

It would instantly kill all mailing lists if implemented, it would be nigh
impossible to enforce, and spammers would find ways to circumvent it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas Schodt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
On the topic of Spam.
An article in the register, category: Politicians/Humor.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/33661.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Ward
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
"Thomas G. Marshall" <(E-Mail Removed). com>
wrote in message news:jgwob.30292$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Scott Hightower <(E-Mail Removed)> coughed up the

following:
>
> > 1. Obfuscation techniques are not very nice. If someone, in all
> > innocence, tries to e-mail you, and just click rather than actually
> > looking at the address, they don't find out for awhile. And their
> > ISP, the backbone servers, and possibly your ISP have to deal with
> > dead mail. There is an old standard, not very well known, that says
> > you should add ".invalid" to the end of an invalid e-mail address.
> > Not all e-mail clients know about that standard, but for those that
> > do, the sender finds out immediately as soon as they click, so you do
> > not cause any addition to the glut on the Internet.

>
> Bah. The worry of getting to me is the burden of the sender, not me.


No, it's your problem. If you post a question with a false return address
and someone, trying to be helpful, attempts to email you a reply which, if
you were to receive it, would be of value to you, and it bounces, then they
are exceedingly unlikely to bother to try again. You've just lost some
information, advice, customers, whatever.

--
Tim Ward
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk


 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
Michael Borgwardt <(E-Mail Removed)> coughed up the following:

> Roedy Green wrote:
>
>> I think the solution is to charge 50 cents to send an email, the
>> money going to the receiver's account. For most people, it would
>> balance out. If you were clever, you could get spammers to pay your
>> rent for you by spamming to an account you never read. Fitting
>> revenge.

>
> Very old, very bad idea.
>
> It would instantly kill all mailing lists if implemented, it would be
> nigh impossible to enforce, and spammers would find ways to
> circumvent it.


Fine by me. Fine by me. And, yeah, probably.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
Tim Ward <(E-Mail Removed)> coughed up the following:

> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote in
> message news:jgwob.30292$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Scott Hightower <(E-Mail Removed)> coughed up the
>> following:
>>
>>> 1. Obfuscation techniques are not very nice. If someone, in all
>>> innocence, tries to e-mail you, and just click rather than actually
>>> looking at the address, they don't find out for awhile. And their
>>> ISP, the backbone servers, and possibly your ISP have to deal with
>>> dead mail. There is an old standard, not very well known, that says
>>> you should add ".invalid" to the end of an invalid e-mail address.
>>> Not all e-mail clients know about that standard, but for those that
>>> do, the sender finds out immediately as soon as they click, so you
>>> do not cause any addition to the glut on the Internet.

>>
>> Bah. The worry of getting to me is the burden of the sender, not me.

>
> No, it's your problem. If you post a question with a false return
> address and someone, trying to be helpful, attempts to email you a
> reply which, if you were to receive it, would be of value to you, and
> it bounces, then they are exceedingly unlikely to bother to try
> again. You've just lost some information, advice, customers, whatever.


Then why not give my home adress? If someone hears of me, and wants to meet
me in person, and they cannot, then I've just lost some information, advice,
customers, whatever? Pbbbsttttt ''''''''''

Bah. For critical stuff they can always post a "hey, Tom, contact me". But
in any case, my current email obfuscation works well. But it need not: I
often think that the http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)w guys are the brightest of all.


 
Reply With Quote
 
J French
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:39:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote:

<snip>
>
>Bah. For critical stuff they can always post a "hey, Tom, contact me". But
>in any case, my current email obfuscation works well. But it need not: I
>often think that the (E-Mail Removed)w guys are the brightest of all.
>


In my case, not that bright

First I used my real Email address - spam came in
Then I obfuscated it - spammers de-obfuscated
Finally I went for anonimity

I use Mailwasher, which has a list of known DNS Blacklist Servers

About 80% of the junk I get comes from those servers
- if it were not for the geographical problems, I would visit those
servers with a few gallons of petrol

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
J French <(E-Mail Removed)> coughed up the following:

> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:39:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Bah. For critical stuff they can always post a "hey, Tom, contact
>> me". But in any case, my current email obfuscation works well. But
>> it need not: I often think that the (E-Mail Removed)w guys are the
>> brightest of all.
>>

>
> In my case, not that bright
>
> First I used my real Email address - spam came in
> Then I obfuscated it - spammers de-obfuscated
> Finally I went for anonimity
>
> I use Mailwasher, which has a list of known DNS Blacklist Servers
>
> About 80% of the junk I get comes from those servers
> - if it were not for the geographical problems, I would visit those
> servers with a few gallons of petrol


Clearly a european or australian. You mean "gasoline" ? lol.

I hear you loud and clear: however you may wish to attempt a "white-list"
mechanism instead.

Thomas




 
Reply With Quote
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNo longer subscribing sean michaelson kim nunn jack snyder david uva ana b
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2003
That's very enrichening and I love it!


Roedy Green <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 07:23:13 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote or quoted
> :
>
> >Fair enough. $.50 means I might not ever get another dumb joke again.

What
> >a filter! The only jokes I'd get would be the ones so damn funny that it
> >was worth paying half a buck to get it to me.

>
> If you SHARE jokes with friends, it evens out and the net cost is 0.
>
> There would come a moral obligation to return a joke. If you didn't,
> people might finally get hint you don't find those saccharine
> jokes/stories amusing.
>
> --
> Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
> Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
> See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spam-Spam and more Spam C A Preston Computer Support 2 04-12-2004 07:15 PM



Advertisments