«

In article <97ae7a66-8225-49d9-9b30->, Matty F <> wrote:

(snip)

>It looks like Thunderbird looked at having a phishing warning back in
>2005 and never finished it.
>
>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279191
>
>Eudora displays a caution when I hover over a phishing URL, like this:
>The actual host [YYYYYY] is different from the host [XXXXXX] in the
>link text

... and fair enough too, given your eyes can check that easily.

On Jul 7, 10:31 am, Gib Bogle <g.bo...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> On 7/6/2011 10:19 PM, Matty F wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 11:42 am, Gib Bogle<g.bo...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >> The interesting thing is that the first part of the URL is OK:http://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax-individual
> >> but the bit on the end sends you off to the scam site. I didn't realize
> >> that was possible.
>
> > What horrible browser or email client are you using that doesn't warn
> > you that the displayed URL is not the same as the URL hidden under it?
>
> Mozilla Thunderbird

It looks like Thunderbird looked at having a phishing warning back in
2005 and never finished it.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279191

Eudora displays a caution when I hover over a phishing URL, like this:
The actual host [YYYYYY] is different from the host [XXXXXX] in the
link text

On 7/7/2011 11:08 AM, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<iv0e6q$d40$>, "Geopelia"<> wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> But they got the refund amount almost right. Good Guess?
>
> Most people in NZ would have been IR5 form filers, so are likely to be in
> the "a few hundred plus or minus category" should they happen work it out.
> Do the scammers know that ? ... probably not.
>
> It's also likely to be a number that's big enough to cause interest without
> being so big it arouses superstition. Basic marketing ploy.
>

superstition?

In article <iv2tmj$r7h$>, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
>On 7/7/2011 11:08 AM, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article<iv0e6q$d40$>, "Geopelia"<>
> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>> But they got the refund amount almost right. Good Guess?
>>
>> Most people in NZ would have been IR5 form filers, so are likely to be in
>> the "a few hundred plus or minus category" should they happen work it out.
>> Do the scammers know that ? ... probably not.
>>
>> It's also likely to be a number that's big enough to cause interest without
>> being so big it arouses superstition. Basic marketing ploy.
>>
>
>superstition?

... funny isn't it ... I spent ages looking at that thinking it was wrong
... then did nothing about it. Could be ... or there could even be some
suspicion as well ?

In article <7ec27d60-dc7e-41b6-8b02->, Matty F <> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 11:10 am, bruce.sincl...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz
>(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>> In article <97ae7a66-8225-49d9-9b30-7dcd3b3cb...@5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Matty F <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>> (snip)
>> >It looks like Thunderbird looked at having a phishing warning back in
>> >2005 and never finished it.
>>
>> >https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279191
>>
>> >Eudora displays a caution when I hover over a phishing URL, like this:
>> >The actual host [YYYYYY] is different from the host [XXXXXX] in the
>> >link text
>>
>> .. and fair enough too, given your eyes can check that easily.
>
>The computer can detect better than my eyes that these are all
>different:
>
>ird lrd 1rd
>
>and sometimes the front of the URL looks valid but there are 30 blanks
>after it follwed by a redirection to somewhere nasty.

Eye tests perhaps ?
As I typed earlier, look at the source code ... if you really must read
email as html of course. I read emails as text, and it cuts out a lot of
rubbish.

On Jul 7, 11:10 am, bruce.sincl...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz
(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
> In article <97ae7a66-8225-49d9-9b30-7dcd3b3cb...@5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Matty F <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >It looks like Thunderbird looked at having a phishing warning back in
> >2005 and never finished it.
>
> >https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279191
>
> >Eudora displays a caution when I hover over a phishing URL, like this:
> >The actual host [YYYYYY] is different from the host [XXXXXX] in the
> >link text
>
> .. and fair enough too, given your eyes can check that easily.

The computer can detect better than my eyes that these are all
different:

ird lrd 1rd

and sometimes the front of the URL looks valid but there are 30 blanks
after it follwed by a redirection to somewhere nasty.

"Bruce Sinclair" < > wrote
in message news:iv2tfs$mfa$...
> In article <>, Kiwi
> <> wrote:
> (snip)
>
>>I received one about two months ago. Examining the email headers
>>revealed the phishing attempt. I sent the details to the real IRD
>>spam reporting section, including the registration details of the
>>actual return address domainholder.
>>
>>As usual with the IRD, they didn't even bother to respond.
>
> IRD have an email address ? ... that you can send things to without being
> 'registered' with them ??
>

I kept asking them for an IR3 and nothing happened. Then I phoned them and
got one in the post a few days later. We are registered now.
But now they tell me I don't need to send an IR3, (I've sent ours in
anyway), but there's something else I can claim our imputation credits on
for next year. I have to be Hubby's nominated person to do his.
Our tax agent wanted over $200 EACH to do our tax! Just Super and three
shares, plus bank interest.
So I'll be doing it myself from now on.

"Bruce Sinclair" < > wrote
in message news:iv2tdu$mfa$...
> In article <iv0e6q$d40$>, "Geopelia" <>
> wrote:
> (snip)
>
>>But they got the refund amount almost right. Good Guess?
>
> Most people in NZ would have been IR5 form filers, so are likely to be in
> the "a few hundred plus or minus category" should they happen work it out.
> Do the scammers know that ? ... probably not.
>
> It's also likely to be a number that's big enough to cause interest
> without
> being so big it arouses superstition. Basic marketing ploy.
>

The Nigerian scam is getting bigger. Now they offered me Billions!

On Jul 8, 12:13 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> I kept asking them for an IR3 and nothing happened. Then I phoned them and
> got one in the post a few days later. We are registered now.
> But now they tell me I don't need to send an IR3, (I've sent ours in
> anyway), but there's something else I can claim our imputation credits on
> for next year. I have to be Hubby's nominated person to do his.
> Our tax agent wanted over $200 EACH to do our tax! Just Super and three
> shares, plus bank interest.
> So I'll be doing it myself from now on.

It it now quite easy to do an IR3 online.
IRD fill in most of the form for you.
Just put in your interest and dividend amounts.
The AECT don't make their dividend details clear, and they take out
far too much tax, so everyone needs to do an IR3 just to get that
back.

The details are:
Imputation Credit 140.51
RWT deducted 14.05
Gross Taxble dividend 468.37

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:16:38 +1200, "Geopelia" <>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>
>"Bruce Sinclair" < > wrote
>in message news:iv2tdu$mfa$...
>> In article <iv0e6q$d40$>, "Geopelia" <>
>> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>>But they got the refund amount almost right. Good Guess?
>>
>> Most people in NZ would have been IR5 form filers, so are likely to be in
>> the "a few hundred plus or minus category" should they happen work it out.
>> Do the scammers know that ? ... probably not.
>>
>> It's also likely to be a number that's big enough to cause interest
>> without
>> being so big it arouses superstition. Basic marketing ploy.
>>
>
>The Nigerian scam is getting bigger. Now they offered me Billions!

Inflation.