«

A lot of spam got through IHUG's spam filters over the last 24 hours.

The delay on delivering email is getting longer and some users are
experiencing problems logging in to check mail.

This is another symptom of the reactive approach to spam.
A proactive approach needs to be taken by ISP's now before it is to late.

I predict that this will not happen until it is way to late.

A certain spam gang is flooding NZ IP space with millions of unwanted
messages and given current trends they will destroy email as we know it.

The problem is real easy to solve.
By detaining three men in Russia/Ukraine a large percentage of spam will
disappear.

Anony Mouse

Anony Mouse wrote:
> A lot of spam got through IHUG's spam filters over the last 24 hours.
>
> The delay on delivering email is getting longer and some users are
> experiencing problems logging in to check mail.
>
> This is another symptom of the reactive approach to spam.
> A proactive approach needs to be taken by ISP's now before it is to late.
>
> I predict that this will not happen until it is way to late.
>
> A certain spam gang is flooding NZ IP space with millions of unwanted
> messages and given current trends they will destroy email as we know it.
>
> The problem is real easy to solve.
> By detaining three men in Russia/Ukraine a large percentage of spam will
> disappear.
>
> Anony Mouse

So fine. Which three men, what are their names and addresses, where is
your proof? Which Russian or Ukrainian laws have they broken?

Philip

Philip wrote:
> Anony Mouse wrote:

<snip>
>
>
> So fine. Which three men, what are their names and addresses, where is
> your proof? Which Russian or Ukrainian laws have they broken?
>
> Philip
>
>
>
They have already been named in other articles.
The info is on the net for all to see including the judgment for several
million that forced one of them out of the US.

Look it up on Spamhaus. Alex is at the top of the Rokso list and Leo is
easy enough to see. If you are clever enough you will be able to follow
the links to all the associated Rokso listings.

domain: send-safe.com
origin-c: JOCO-942786
organization: Ibragimov Ruslan
email:
address: Kulikovskaya st. 9, korp. 2, kv. 155
city: Moscow
state: --
postal-code: 117628
country: RU
phone: +7.9177509211

Fraud, Identity theft, money laundering to name a just few.

Send him an email (I have other email addresses for him) and ask him
yourself or even better call him he does speak English. Maybe you can do
an interview for your radio station. (Just joking really he never has
given anything but lies when I have talked to him.)

As for proof I have been chasing these people around for years.
I have plenty. Do you want a copy of my archive? Not that a journo
is going to get anything from me now days apart from contempt.

Anony Mouse

Waylon Kenning wrote:
> T'was the Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:56:09 +1200 when I remembered Anony
> Mouse <> saying something like this:
>
>
>>By detaining three men in Russia/Ukraine a large percentage of spam will
>>disappear.
>
>
> I see you're still continuing along this train of thought.

Yep along with many others who know the extent to which these criminals
go to steal from others.

I was
> reading that some spammer sued Spamhaus for ~$12M in the States.
> Except they're not in the States, they're in England.

The great Sassenach Warrior Stiff Linefeed.
It is a pity he never publishes the full extent of the evidence he has.
That is only available to law enforcement.

So their
> jurisdiction doesn't count.

Never under-estimate the yanks. They whacked Van Essen from affair.

And ours doesn't count in Russia.

Yep. Just like it is a waste of time standing up at all... After all we
are just a little country that never influences anyone. NOT!

Don't
> feel I'm just being nitpickey, I'm being a realist.
Defeatist more like. If I thought like that I would never have won the
battles I did against ICANN. A hand full of us took on ICANN and forced
them to introduce the WDPRS system.

I mean, what's to
> stop some spammer setting up a site in a country that has even less
> technological laws than Russia.
Like Zimbabwe? Invalid argument. I live in a real world.
>
> I guess the root cause of the problem is that spamming is still
> profitable.
If you think that then you need to do some research.
Start with the rules of spam. Then go find the rulings that have been
made against spammers. Start with Peter Francis-Macrae and others
that have a new wife, Bubba! Try "spammer janyes" or "spammer convict"
in google.

If you remove the profit from spam, there's no economical
> reason to spam. Who keeps buying stuff from spam?

Again your reasoning is fatally flawed.
These people are not making money from selling stuff.
What I am talking about is the bank emails, trademe/ebay fraud
and the likes. Plenty of idiots give up their passwords and CC details.
Not to mention the clowns who buy stokes in Pump & Dump scams.

You should just remain blissfully ignorant Waylon you will be fine that
way rather than expose how little you do know.

Anony Mouse

T'was the Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:34:33 +1200 when I remembered Anony
Mouse <> saying something like this:

>You should just remain blissfully ignorant Waylon you will be fine that
>way rather than expose how little you do know.

Well I'll admit that the ins and outs of spam certainly isn't my
forte. But I guess on newsgroup, my opinion is worth about as much as
yours, three-fifths of nothing really.

Spam happens. Attacking people who spam is like trying to stop murders
by arresting people who've already murdered. Last time I checked,
murders still occurred. Perhaps you're dealing with the symptoms not
the cause.
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.

Anony Mouse wrote:
> A lot of spam got through IHUG's spam filters over the last 24 hours.
>
> The delay on delivering email is getting longer and some users are
> experiencing problems logging in to check mail.
>
> This is another symptom of the reactive approach to spam.
> A proactive approach needs to be taken by ISP's now before it is to late.

You're right, but your approach is wrong. Turn *off* the spam filters,
and mail will start getting through much quicker.

Most spam filtering saves nothing in bandwidth, but they do waste CPU/IO
time.

The Other Guy

The Other Guy wrote:
> Anony Mouse wrote:
>
>> A lot of spam got through IHUG's spam filters over the last 24 hours.
>>
>> The delay on delivering email is getting longer and some users are
>> experiencing problems logging in to check mail.
>>
>> This is another symptom of the reactive approach to spam.
>> A proactive approach needs to be taken by ISP's now before it is to late.
>
>
> You're right, but your approach is wrong.
I am an anti-spam activist. I have my reasons.
Education and awareness.
>Turn *off* the spam filters,
Yep when I want to I do but with 3,500 + spam per week I don't very
often. Just to count. I take note of what gets through.

> and mail will start getting through much quicker.
Yep but for those that need to filter they have a 8 + hour delay on ihug
atm. Now that adds up to another day that a customer/friend has to wait.

The hidden costs of spam. Plus the need for ihug to buy more stuff.
>
> Most spam filtering saves nothing in bandwidth, but they do waste CPU/IO
> time.
Most do not want to see filth in there in box and that is just one issue.
>
> The Other Guy
What approach do you suggest? Maybe you are second guessing my motives.
Me getting spam is not the issue. Educating others and getting people to
stand up and be counted is.

Apart from me there is nobody concerned enough to say "Hey this can't
keep going on like it is".

Note how I am able to shoot down anyone who stands up and talks garbage.
This is not aimed at you by the way. Even the MS man (Roberts) got told
politely he is an idiot. I think you are just confused about what I am
trying to do.

If I can sway the publics perception even a little I will feel a bit
better than if I were to do nothing given what I know.

Thanks for your input.

Anony Mouse

Waylon Kenning wrote:
> T'was the Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:34:33 +1200 when I remembered Anony
> Mouse <> saying something like this:
>
>
>>You should just remain blissfully ignorant Waylon you will be fine that
>>way rather than expose how little you do know.
>
>
> Well I'll admit that the ins and outs of spam certainly isn't my
> forte.
Mine. Yes it is. To be a bit Yoda ish.

But I guess on newsgroup, my opinion is worth about as much as
> yours, three-fifths of nothing really.

Not at all. I do appreciate your input. It allows me to expand on what I
have said. I know I am a bit harsh sometimes. I am alway prepared to say
I am sorry if it is warranted.

As for my opinion I have no problem with being ignored. Spam is not an
issue for me. I can change my email address and it goes away. It is the
rest of you that are having the problems. I admit it annoys me having to
pay for my ISP's costs but there is not much I can do about that in the
short term.
>
> Spam happens. Attacking people who spam is like trying to stop murders
> by arresting people who've already murdered. Last time I checked,
> murders still occurred. Perhaps you're dealing with the symptoms not
> the cause.

I am very much trying to deal with the cause. Highlighting the symptoms
and the falsehood that is the current solution can only help deal with
the cause.

I can see that I have already helped to sway your thoughts on the issue.
Thanks for your input.

Anony Mouse

Anony Mouse wrote:
> The Other Guy wrote:
>> You're right, but your approach is wrong.
> I am an anti-spam activist. I have my reasons.
> Education and awareness.

While I certainly would prefer not to receive spam, I personally
consider getting my mail to be the number one priority. Spam filters
cause me more problems than they solve, mainly with sending mail to
other people.

People need to be educated not to give their addresses out to untrusted
sources, they need to think about what they do, and run virus scanners
to prevent malicious applications sending out mail to every address
found on a system. Postmasters need to do their job, not misconfigure
their mail systems to allow abuse or to blindly block what might be spam.

My interests are in maintaining the integrity of the mail system, which
is seriously impacted by the use of filters. If people ignored spam,
mail would actually be reliable... just full of crap as well.

>> Most spam filtering saves nothing in bandwidth, but they do waste
>> CPU/IO time.
> Most do not want to see filth in there in box and that is just one issue.

You mean Viagra and penis extension ads? Hardly filth, and that is about
the worst I get.

> What approach do you suggest? Maybe you are second guessing my motives.
> Me getting spam is not the issue. Educating others and getting people to
> stand up and be counted is.

The problem is largely originating from overseas. Suggesting that the NZ
government or private individuals assist with detaining people in a
foreign country is hardly realistic.

> Apart from me there is nobody concerned enough to say "Hey this can't
> keep going on like it is".

I think if you research my posts, you will find I have been saying this
for years. Of course, my position has always been against the use of
filters.

If people really want to filter spam, the best I can recommend now is
Bayesian spam filtering, controlled by the individual user.

The Other Guy

T'was the Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:44:37 +1200 when I remembered The Other
Guy <> saying something like this:

>People need to be educated not to give their addresses out to untrusted
>sources, they need to think about what they do, and run virus scanners
>to prevent malicious applications sending out mail to every address
>found on a system. Postmasters need to do their job, not misconfigure
>their mail systems to allow abuse or to blindly block what might be spam.

How to trust a source? When I sign up on a website with an email
address, I change the first part of my email address to match the
website. I've gotten spam to devshed [at] rubun [dot] com,
computerartsuk [at] ...

I mean, I'm not giving my address out to porn and spam websites, yet I
still get it.

>My interests are in maintaining the integrity of the mail system, which
>is seriously impacted by the use of filters. If people ignored spam,
>mail would actually be reliable... just full of crap as well.

About 3000 a month. So that's about 100 a day. Of which I get about 10
valid emails. The S-N ratio's 10 to 1. Sorry, that's a hassle I can't
be bothered with without spam filters. Though I must admit, Gmail's
spam filters seem to be pretty good.
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.