Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Biggest Usenet SPAMMER Finally Identified!!! ----- IOlRvcv4Jk | General |