Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > How can I get my own back on spammers?

Reply
Thread Tools

How can I get my own back on spammers?

 
 
Nick Worley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
"°Mike°" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Are you stupid, or what?
> Most spammers have forged return
> addresses -


I didn't know that, but that hardly makes be stupid.
People never stop learning and asking questions all their lives.
What *would* be stupid would be to not ask questions about things I don't
know about - how else will I learn?
My thing is language and linguistics. If you asked me to explain to you the
difference betwen the present perfect and the present perfect continuous
tense, I certainly wouldn't reply "Are you stupid, or what?". I'd explain it
to you.

> you'd, potentially, be bombarding innocent servers,


Well, I didn't consider that, but that's not my intention, as you must have
realized.

> not to mention that responding "in kind" makes you as bad as
> the real spammers.


I'm not sure I agree. I'd say there is a huge difference between spammers
sending me unsolicited e-mails (for porn, drugs, loans, etc, etc) and me
sending spammers mail with the hope that it'll totally inconvenience them
and (best case scenario) put them out of business. After all, my intention
isn't to rip spammers off, just to get rid of them so my Inbox isn't full of
their junk.

Anyway, wanting to try and find out more, I quizzed a couple of friends
about this and one said that many spammers will use special automated
software to harvest e-mail address from newsgroups and websites and then
send out spam to these harvested e-mail addresses (I munge my e-mail address
and my ISP uses spam filters, but some spam always seems to get through). He
also said that it is possible for people to place a specific URL on their
website and this URL will get harvested by the spammer's automated software.
When the automated software goes to that specific URL it will find about 100
randomly generated useless e-mail addresses (e.g. http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed))
and the automated software will them spam these useless addresses, all of
which will get bounched to what is presumably the spammer's real e-mail
address. Every time the automated software returns to that website, 100 more
different randomly generated e-mail addresses will be listed. Presuming
thousands or millions of people have a link to this URL on their own
websites and presuming the spam is bounced to the spammer's real e-mail
address, then I would have thought that this will totally inconvenience the
spammers and hopefully put them out of business. Or their ISPs may complain
about the amount of mail the spammers are receiving and terminate their
service - now that would be ironic.

After just doing a Google search for "randomly generated e-mail addresses"
it appears there are several of these anti-spam apps around.
Has anyone here used them and do they work? I also want to be sure they're
not spyware or anything like that.
Thanks
Nick



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Poaster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
This is the Flibbydabby Dee Service of the BBC, & on Tue, 26 Aug 2003
16:49:56 +0000, Mistercmk uttered this:

>
> "Jimchip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:46:51 GMT, Mistercmk wrote:
>> >
>> > "trout" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:bif0se$8e7og$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
>> >> Mistercmk wrote:

>> [snip]
>> >> > I have done nothing different regarding e-mail, and posting, etc.
>> >> > The only thing that I have been doing is bouncing the e-mails.
>> >>
>> >> So, sure. *You'll* see less spam in your Inbox. But it's also your
>> >> overall service that will be degraded as your ISP handles higher

> volumes
>> >> of undeliverable junk being passed back and forth, generated by
>> >> 'bounce' programs. As well as the service of other innocent third
>> >> parties.
>> >> As there is *no* net benefit to you by bouncing, rather than just
>> >> blacklisting and deleting spam; you *are part* of the spam problem. The
>> >> best thing to do to combat spam is, of course, to report it. If not,
>> >> just delete it.
>> >
>> > How about this, I'll foward every piece of spam I get to you, and you

> can
>> > take the time to foward it.

>>
>> Either take the time to report it yourself or just delete it- Was
>> trout's statement *that* hard to understand?
>>

> You see, thats the thing. I don't want to take the time to report it. It
> is easier for me to just click bounce, and away goes the spam. If I delete
> it, I am not doing anything to combat the problem. If you have a problem
> with that, thats too damn bad.


Really? You do realise that it makes YOU a spammer, & thus your ISP can
shut you down?

"Sending bounce notices has been observed to be ineffective in having
spammers remove your email address from their list. Most spammers do not
use a real email address for the sender of the email, and oftentimes
forge the email address of an arbitrary third party. Since the bounce
messages would most likely not be sent back to the spammer, and may be
sent to an innocent third party, it is better not to send any bounce
notice.
This is most likely a violation of the AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) of
the Internet Service Provider(s) that you are using for your network
access and could get you into serious trouble.

Now if you don't care & want an new ISp, carry on.
--
"Don't call us, & we shan't bother you"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jimchip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:49:56 GMT, Mistercmk wrote:
>
> "Jimchip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:46:51 GMT, Mistercmk wrote:
>> >
>> > "trout" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:bif0se$8e7og$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
>> >> Mistercmk wrote:

>> [snip]
>> >> > I have done nothing different regarding e-mail, and posting, etc.
>> >> > The only thing that I have been doing is bouncing the e-mails.
>> >>
>> >> So, sure. *You'll* see less spam in your Inbox. But it's also your
>> >> overall service that will be degraded as your ISP handles higher

> volumes
>> >> of undeliverable junk being passed back and forth, generated by
>> >> 'bounce' programs. As well as the service of other innocent third
>> >> parties.
>> >> As there is *no* net benefit to you by bouncing, rather than just
>> >> blacklisting and deleting spam; you *are part* of the spam problem. The
>> >> best thing to do to combat spam is, of course, to report it. If not,
>> >> just delete it.
>> >
>> > How about this, I'll foward every piece of spam I get to you, and you

> can
>> > take the time to foward it.

>>
>> Either take the time to report it yourself or just delete it- Was
>> trout's statement *that* hard to understand?
>>

> You see, thats the thing. I don't want to take the time to report it. It
> is easier for me to just click bounce, and away goes the spam. If I delete
> it, I am not doing anything to combat the problem. If you have a problem
> with that, thats too damn bad.


You're obviously too dense to understand that "for me to just click
bounce, and away goes the spam" does nothing but cause other innocents
problems.

--
"buh bye"
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:04:04 +0100, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>
Freda scrawled:

>°Mike° said
>> Are you stupid, or what? Most spammers have forged return
>> addresses - you'd, potentially, be bombarding innocent servers,
>> not to mention that responding "in kind" makes you as bad as
>> the real spammers.

>
>Bit unfair IMO - people need to learn and understand somehow. All you
>needed to do was explain how it all works.


No unfair at all, as it turned out.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:56:24 +0100, in
<big3ab$8of53$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de>
Nick Worley scrawled:

>"°Mike°" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Are you stupid, or what?
>> Most spammers have forged return
>> addresses -

>
>I didn't know that, but that hardly makes be stupid.
>People never stop learning and asking questions all their lives.
>What *would* be stupid would be to not ask questions about things I don't
>know about - how else will I learn?
>My thing is language and linguistics. If you asked me to explain to you the
>difference betwen the present perfect and the present perfect continuous
>tense, I certainly wouldn't reply "Are you stupid, or what?". I'd explain it
>to you.


I *was* going to agree with you, until I read the remainder of
your post.

<snip>

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sentient Fluid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
"Mistercmk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:UcM2b.266067$o%2.121689@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Jimchip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:46:51 GMT, Mistercmk wrote:
> > >
> > > "trout" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:bif0se$8e7og$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> > >> Mistercmk wrote:

> > [snip]
> > >> > I have done nothing different regarding e-mail, and posting, etc.
> > >> > The only thing that I have been doing is bouncing the e-mails.
> > >>
> > >> So, sure. *You'll* see less spam in your Inbox. But it's also

your
> > >> overall service that will be degraded as your ISP handles higher

> volumes
> > >> of undeliverable junk being passed back and forth, generated by
> > >> 'bounce' programs. As well as the service of other innocent third
> > >> parties.
> > >> As there is *no* net benefit to you by bouncing, rather than just
> > >> blacklisting and deleting spam; you *are part* of the spam problem.

The
> > >> best thing to do to combat spam is, of course, to report it. If not,
> > >> just delete it.
> > >
> > > How about this, I'll foward every piece of spam I get to you, and you

> can
> > > take the time to foward it.

> >
> > Either take the time to report it yourself or just delete it- Was
> > trout's statement *that* hard to understand?
> >

> You see, thats the thing. I don't want to take the time to report it. It
> is easier for me to just click bounce, and away goes the spam. If I

delete
> it, I am not doing anything to combat the problem. If you have a problem
> with that, thats too damn bad.


And if you bounce it, then you are contributing to the problem...


 
Reply With Quote
 
The Old Sourdough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:26:20 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind boggled
at the following statement by Sentient Fluid in message
news:g8R2b.42014$(E-Mail Removed)

> "Mistercmk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:UcM2b.266067$o%2.121689@sccrnsc02...
>>

snip

>> >

>> You see, thats the thing. I don't want to take the time to report it. It
>> is easier for me to just click bounce, and away goes the spam. If I

> delete
>> it, I am not doing anything to combat the problem. If you have a problem
>> with that, thats too damn bad.

>
> And if you bounce it, then you are contributing to the problem...
>
>
>


Instead of being part of the solution, he's part of the problem. Ah, well,
some people refuse to accept clue.

--
The Old Sourdough
No of SETI units returned: 2013
Processing time: 4 years, 6 days, 16 hours.
(Total hours: 35200)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:49:56 GMT, in
<UcM2b.266067$o%2.121689@sccrnsc02>
Mistercmk scrawled:

>
>"Jimchip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:46:51 GMT, Mistercmk wrote:
>> >
>> > "trout" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:bif0se$8e7og$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
>> >> Mistercmk wrote:

>> [snip]
>> >> > I have done nothing different regarding e-mail, and posting, etc.
>> >> > The only thing that I have been doing is bouncing the e-mails.
>> >>
>> >> So, sure. *You'll* see less spam in your Inbox. But it's also your
>> >> overall service that will be degraded as your ISP handles higher

>volumes
>> >> of undeliverable junk being passed back and forth, generated by
>> >> 'bounce' programs. As well as the service of other innocent third
>> >> parties.
>> >> As there is *no* net benefit to you by bouncing, rather than just
>> >> blacklisting and deleting spam; you *are part* of the spam problem. The
>> >> best thing to do to combat spam is, of course, to report it. If not,
>> >> just delete it.
>> >
>> > How about this, I'll foward every piece of spam I get to you, and you

>can
>> > take the time to foward it.

>>
>> Either take the time to report it yourself or just delete it- Was
>> trout's statement *that* hard to understand?
>>

>You see, thats the thing. I don't want to take the time to report it. It
>is easier for me to just click bounce, and away goes the spam.


To *innocent* servers.

>If I delete it, I am not doing anything to combat the problem.


Neither are you if you use the 'Bounce' feature - on the contrary,
you are adding to mail servers' problems. This effects the service
that *you* pay for.

>If you have a problem with that, thats too damn bad.


If your service started to be effected, you wouldn't say that.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mistercmk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003

"William Poaster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> This is the Flibbydabby Dee Service of the BBC, & on Tue, 26 Aug 2003
> 16:49:56 +0000, Mistercmk uttered this:
>
> >
> > "Jimchip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:46:51 GMT, Mistercmk wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "trout" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> > news:bif0se$8e7og$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> >> >> Mistercmk wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> >> > I have done nothing different regarding e-mail, and posting, etc.
> >> >> > The only thing that I have been doing is bouncing the e-mails.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, sure. *You'll* see less spam in your Inbox. But it's also

your
> >> >> overall service that will be degraded as your ISP handles higher

> > volumes
> >> >> of undeliverable junk being passed back and forth, generated by
> >> >> 'bounce' programs. As well as the service of other innocent third
> >> >> parties.
> >> >> As there is *no* net benefit to you by bouncing, rather than

just
> >> >> blacklisting and deleting spam; you *are part* of the spam problem.

The
> >> >> best thing to do to combat spam is, of course, to report it. If not,
> >> >> just delete it.
> >> >
> >> > How about this, I'll foward every piece of spam I get to you, and you

> > can
> >> > take the time to foward it.
> >>
> >> Either take the time to report it yourself or just delete it- Was
> >> trout's statement *that* hard to understand?
> >>

> > You see, thats the thing. I don't want to take the time to report it.

It
> > is easier for me to just click bounce, and away goes the spam. If I

delete
> > it, I am not doing anything to combat the problem. If you have a

problem
> > with that, thats too damn bad.

>
> Really? You do realise that it makes YOU a spammer, & thus your ISP can
> shut you down?
>
> "Sending bounce notices has been observed to be ineffective in having
> spammers remove your email address from their list. Most spammers do not
> use a real email address for the sender of the email, and oftentimes
> forge the email address of an arbitrary third party. Since the bounce
> messages would most likely not be sent back to the spammer, and may be
> sent to an innocent third party, it is better not to send any bounce
> notice.
> This is most likely a violation of the AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) of
> the Internet Service Provider(s) that you are using for your network
> access and could get you into serious trouble.
>
> Now if you don't care & want an new ISp, carry on.


All I am doing is rejecting an e-mail, returning it to sender, be it and
innocent server, or not. If it is innocent, then it is their problem, not
mine.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mara
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2003
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:07:32 -0000, Jimchip wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:49:56 GMT, Mistercmk wrote:


<snip>
>> You see, thats the thing. I don't want to take the time to report it. It
>> is easier for me to just click bounce, and away goes the spam. If I delete
>> it, I am not doing anything to combat the problem. If you have a problem
>> with that, thats too damn bad.

>
>You're obviously too dense to understand that "for me to just click
>bounce, and away goes the spam" does nothing but cause other innocents
>problems.


Oh, he'll come to understand, all right, when he loses his account, or his host
finds itself blocklisted from here to eternity and when it asks why the fingers
point to him, and...he loses his account. But hey, "it's not his problem,"
right?



--
"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
from malice." -- Vernon Schryver
 
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
Using own classloader inside J2EE to load and unload own classes. Stefan Siegl Java 1 07-02-2013 05:05 AM
Allowing access to my own computers within my own network =?Utf-8?B?VHJldm9y?= Wireless Networking 2 07-20-2006 09:05 PM
I have built my own (simple) thread manager [TM], but just found java 5 has its own. Saverio M. Java 0 07-03-2006 08:52 AM
disable the back button provide the users with my own button to go back. sylvia sil ASP .Net 1 12-29-2004 04:41 PM
Your own photos in your own book Frank ess Digital Photography 1 12-09-2004 05:54 PM



Advertisments