Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
John P Reber
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist


-- Chuck Tribolet
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/triblet Silicon Valley: STILL the
best day job in the world. "Joe Parsons" wrote in
message ...

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:25:32 -0800, "Chuck Tribolet"

wrote:


Mozilla is user-trainable, so the moving target isn't a problem.

When it
misses one, you just mark it as spam, Mozilla gets retrained a

little, and
it gets dropped in the Junk folder.



Sure--but if you have to be continually retraining your mail client,

it kind of
defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

My situation may be a tad different, because of the sheer volume of

spam I
receive (close to 1,000 a day). Filters alone won't work for me

simply because
so many of the spammers are developing countermesures to evade them.

Ultimately, the only solution to spam is for it to be no longer

profitable for
the spammers--that people stop responding ot it.

Joe Parsons


The problem there is that some of the spammers aren't spamming their
product. They're spamming you with other peoples products so that you
don't buy from them, and you buy from their competitor who is the
actuall spammer.

  #12   Report Post  
Joe Parsons
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:26:02 -0500, John P Reber
wrote:

[snip]

Ultimately, the only solution to spam is for it to be no longer

profitable for
the spammers--that people stop responding ot it.

Joe Parsons


The problem there is that some of the spammers aren't spamming their
product. They're spamming you with other peoples products so that you
don't buy from them, and you buy from their competitor who is the
actuall spammer.


That's true. You have two tiers of spam: those who are hawking their own stuff,
and those who are selling a spamming service to people who don't know any
better. I suspect the latter group (the big spamhauses) are larger. While they
make their money by selling their "services" to ignorant merchants, if the word
were to get out that spamming simply doesn't work as a marketing approach, then
their market would dry up.

Joe Parsons
  #13   Report Post  
Peggie Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

That's true. You have two tiers of spam: those who are hawking their own stuff,
and those who are selling a spamming service to people who don't know any
better. I suspect the latter group (the big spamhauses) are larger. While they
make their money by selling their "services" to ignorant merchants, if the word
were to get out that spamming simply doesn't work as a marketing approach, then
their market would dry up.


If only that WERE true! Any merchant who doesn't know by now that spam
is unwelcome would have to be more than just ignorant...he'd have to
either be brain dead or live in vacuum where computers don't exist.
Unfortunately, spam is a very cheap form of advertising--so cheap that a
return of 1% or less makes it profitable for the spammer AND his merchant.

The anti-spam legislation just passed by Congress sounds good, but in
fact will be totally ineffective...because spammers will simply move
offshore where they aren't affected by any US laws prohibiting the
sending of it...in fact, at least half of it now originates from
offshore. And a national "no spam" list will only give 'em lists of good
email addresses. About all it will accomplish will be to discourage
legimate US businesses from using spam as an advertising medium.

The real solution IMO would be to require ISPs to block all incoming
email to more than 10 addresses from the same sender.

Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://www.seaworthy.com/html/get_ri...oat_odors.html

  #14   Report Post  
Joe Parsons
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:57:14 GMT, Peggie Hall wrote:

That's true. You have two tiers of spam: those who are hawking their own stuff,
and those who are selling a spamming service to people who don't know any
better. I suspect the latter group (the big spamhauses) are larger. While they
make their money by selling their "services" to ignorant merchants, if the word
were to get out that spamming simply doesn't work as a marketing approach, then
their market would dry up.


If only that WERE true! Any merchant who doesn't know by now that spam
is unwelcome would have to be more than just ignorant...he'd have to
either be brain dead or live in vacuum where computers don't exist.


....or he'd have to be susceptible to the sales pitch from some spamhaus.

P.T. was right, after all...

Unfortunately, spam is a very cheap form of advertising--so cheap that a
return of 1% or less makes it profitable for the spammer AND his merchant.


Well, let me put it into perspective. I use direct mail (snail) quite a lot in
my business. My cost is around $400.00 per thousand pieces mailed. If I get a
1% response, I dance in the streets! That gives me a cost-per-lead of $40.00.
As it happens, I get a response approaching .75%. Compare that with a spammer
who sends out 30 *million* letters, charging his suck...uh, client $1,000 for
that "service." Depending on what the guy is selling, the response percentages
can be very, very small to generate a profit.

The anti-spam legislation just passed by Congress sounds good, but in
fact will be totally ineffective...because spammers will simply move
offshore where they aren't affected by any US laws prohibiting the
sending of it...in fact, at least half of it now originates from
offshore. And a national "no spam" list will only give 'em lists of good
email addresses. About all it will accomplish will be to discourage
legimate US businesses from using spam as an advertising medium.

The real solution IMO would be to require ISPs to block all incoming
email to more than 10 addresses from the same sender.


That would be one solution, but keep in mind that the spammers don't use a
traditional ISP. In many cases they're hijacking someone else's open mail
relay.

Joe Parsons


Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://www.seaworthy.com/html/get_ri...oat_odors.html


  #15   Report Post  
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...

My situation may be a tad different, because of the sheer volume of

spam I
receive (close to 1,000 a day). Filters alone won't work for me simply

because
so many of the spammers are developing countermesures to evade them.


Try using a form mail script instead of a harvestable email address on

your
webpage.


I get very little spam to the address on my web page.


If so, you're doing something else very wrong, or have ****ed someone off
pretty bad to receive 1,000 spam emails a day.
I would still use a form mail script on your webpage before robots harvest
your email address. There are free ones available.

They will eventually harvest your email address from your webpage, why wait
for them to do so?




  #16   Report Post  
Backyard Renegade
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

"Joe" wrote in message ...
"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...

My situation may be a tad different, because of the sheer volume of

spam I
receive (close to 1,000 a day). Filters alone won't work for me simply

because
so many of the spammers are developing countermesures to evade them.


Try using a form mail script instead of a harvestable email address on

your
webpage.


I get very little spam to the address on my web page.


If so, you're doing something else very wrong, or have ****ed someone off
pretty bad to receive 1,000 spam emails a day.


Not really, we have business addresses that get 4000 a day, they have
been around for many years and being business addresses, have been in
many a harvested personal address book in Outlook and such. But on the
other hand, the "blacklist" that Harry posted it useless. Attacking
the from field is not the way to go, you must go for the money. Attack
the entity that is going to benefit from the spam, or the product
itself. This is best done by addressing information in the body of the
message. Spammers are getting better so blocking 50 versions of v1agra
won't do either. What we have been doing lately is attacking the
snippets of code that the spammers use to disquise the words, in the
html. For instance, we have a limit set on how many "comment" commands
are acceptable, if there are more than the alloted number, it is
assumed to be hiding something, it is bounced. Of course the number is
somewhat high, so some still gets through. It takes a lot of work to
really address spam. We use filters on our e-mail clients, server wide
protection that my partner writes, and another program developed by
another partner which can be activated and managed by individual
account, and allowes filtering based on code, not just words and
phrases. I still see 40 to 50 spams a day, but that is manageable.
Another good thing is to use throwaway emails and contact forms on
webpages that do not allow robots to harvest your email address.
Scotty
I would still use a form mail script on your webpage before robots harvest
your email address. There are free ones available.

They will eventually harvest your email address from your webpage, why wait
for them to do so?

  #17   Report Post  
Peter W. Meek
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:57:14 GMT, Peggie Hall
wrote:

The real solution IMO would be to require ISPs to block all incoming
email to more than 10 addresses from the same sender.


They already do something like that. The result is
"spam guns" that send spam in batches that don't trigger
those limits.

I support the death penalty for spammers.
Steal six million minutes from as many individuals
and I assert that society has the right to exact
those six million minutes from the life of the
spammer. Two or three batches and it's a death penalty.

  #18   Report Post  
Joe Parsons
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:52:49 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .

My situation may be a tad different, because of the sheer volume of

spam I
receive (close to 1,000 a day). Filters alone won't work for me simply
because
so many of the spammers are developing countermesures to evade them.


Try using a form mail script instead of a harvestable email address on

your
webpage.


I get very little spam to the address on my web page.


If so, you're doing something else very wrong, or have ****ed someone off
pretty bad to receive 1,000 spam emails a day.
I would still use a form mail script on your webpage before robots harvest
your email address. There are free ones available.


Well, for starters, being quite visible on Usenet for a decade and a half might
have something to do with it...

They will eventually harvest your email address from your webpage, why wait
for them to do so?


Spammers don't harvest only from web pages.

I use many different usernames. This gives me the ability to source mail I get.
So if, for instance, I use an address in rec.boats like
" and suddenly discover spam coming to that address, I
can be certain that this address was harvested from this newsgroup. Over the
last five years or so, I'd say I've used several dozen different usernames--all
pointing to my news server.

I still get spam to addresses that I have not used for close to ten years. This
tells me that the name has been resold or traded.

But my websites get such modest traffic that I can be quite sure it's not a
significant source of spam for me.

Joe Parsons
  #19   Report Post  
Harry Krause
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

Backyard Renegade wrote:
But on the
other hand, the "blacklist" that Harry posted it useless. Attacking
the from field is not the way to go, you must go for the money.



My goal is to lower the amount of email spam I get. If I get more than a
couple of spams from an ISP, I blacklist it and the spam from that ISP
stops. Ergo, my method works. And I do check the filter log from time to
time to set what's in there. Lots of SPAM from such lovely irresponsible
sites as JUNO.


--
Email sent to is never read.
  #20   Report Post  
Harry Krause
 
Posts: n/a
Default SPAMMER Blacklist

Peter W. Meek wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:57:14 GMT, Peggie Hall
wrote:

The real solution IMO would be to require ISPs to block all incoming
email to more than 10 addresses from the same sender.


They already do something like that. The result is
"spam guns" that send spam in batches that don't trigger
those limits.

I support the death penalty for spammers.
Steal six million minutes from as many individuals
and I assert that society has the right to exact
those six million minutes from the life of the
spammer. Two or three batches and it's a death penalty.


Or have to sit quietly in a chair while George W. Bush tries to read
aloud from a page of an adult version of The Tale of Two Cities without
fumbling a word.

--
Email sent to is never read.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Biggest Usenet SPAMMER Finally Identified!!! ----- IOlRvcv4Jk Skipper General 2 July 8th 03 12:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017