Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.news.azstarnet.com!reader1.news.azstarnet.com!news From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 09:37:46 -0700 Organization: Starnet Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.197.37.16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) Oops, okay, TWO topics, one message.......... Tom Stepleton wrote: > s/rototiller/artsci/ in my address to e-mail me... In a reply you said I hadn't e-mailed you. WRONG! the e-mail BOUNCED. because YOU intentionally mis-directed it. Anyone who thinks ANTISPAM does any good is totally naive and clueless. What an address seller does is set up an e-mail address sniffer on a backbone, or a major gateway, and simply record EVERY address that comes by, good, bad, fictitious. He doesn't CARE....he gets paid BY THE ADDRESS. Fill his basket with CRAP, he BENEFITS! SO, if you include antispam instructions and ANYBODY e-mails you, you're HAD. Stand up and take your spam like a MAN (or woman). Stop whinning. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!news1.radix.net!not-for-mail From: johnl@Radix.Net (John A. Limpert) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 20:18:04 GMT Organization: RadixNet Internet Services Lines: 14 Message-ID: <3527e583.80903390@news1.Radix.Net> References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: port48.annex4.radix.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 09:37:46 -0700, bill_h wrote: >What an address seller does is set up an e-mail address sniffer on a >backbone, or a major gateway, and simply record EVERY address that >comes by, good, bad, fictitious. Do you have any evidence to support that statement? All of the address collection software that I have seen scans text files, USENET postings or web sites. -- John A. Limpert There Is No Lumber Cartel johnl@Radix.Net ###### Date: 05 Apr 98 22:06:31 -0800 From: "Charlie Gibbs" Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> <3527e583.80903390@news1.Radix.Net> Message-ID: <1105.399T1573T13264710@sky.bus.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 27 X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.skybus.com Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.244.4.2!news.westel.com!news.skybus.com!204.244.247.106 In article <3527e583.80903390@news1.Radix.Net> johnl@Radix.Net (John A. Limpert) writes: >On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 09:37:46 -0700, bill_h >wrote: > >>What an address seller does is set up an e-mail address sniffer on >>a backbone, or a major gateway, and simply record EVERY address that >>comes by, good, bad, fictitious. > >Do you have any evidence to support that statement? > >All of the address collection software that I have seen scans text >files, USENET postings or web sites. That sounds reasonable to me. About a year ago I switched ISPs. Before the switch I was being inundated with junk e-mail - as many as half a dozen pieces a day. When I signed up with my current ISP I ensured that not a single news posting went out with my proper e-mail address. I haven't received one piece of junk e-mail since. So although it might theoretically be possible that a sophisticated address sniffer might intercept addresses from legitimate e-mail, in practice it doesn't seem to happen. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 01:25:18 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 74 Message-ID: <352812DE.EDBA719F@ccw.ch> References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) bill_h wrote: > > Tom Stepleton wrote: > > s/rototiller/artsci/ in my address to e-mail me... > > In a reply you said I hadn't e-mailed you. > WRONG! the e-mail BOUNCED. because YOU intentionally mis-directed it. Looks like the spam killer worked, though this time not on a spammer. > Anyone who thinks ANTISPAM does any good is totally naive and clueless. So you call me (see my antispam in the From: above) "totally naive and clueless"? Well guess what: Before I started usenetting I had ca 1-2 spams a week, that went up to 5-10 a day within 2 days. After adding an antispam it dropped again to 1-2 a week inside 2 weeks. So antispams work - damn good. > What an address seller does is set up an e-mail address sniffer on a > backbone, or a major gateway, and simply record EVERY address that > comes by, good, bad, fictitious. Actually they usually set up an news server and feed any newsgroup they can to it. There they have an program that searches all messages for any thing of the form "From: xxx@yyy.zzz", possibly some also scan the message bodies for addresses in .sigs. > He doesn't CARE....he gets paid > BY THE ADDRESS. Fill his basket with CRAP, he BENEFITS! Guess what: I don't mind the address collectors! It is the spammers that _use_ the addresses, that are the menace. I could not care if some a**hole spammer pays an address collector for crap, in fact I think that is great! Increase the crap in the address lists, make spamming more expensive! I am actually thinking of making an random spambait generator, this would make an allways different line of fake mail addresses at the bottom of each message. Perhaps even making fake adresses all pointing to an valid "pseudo mail server" with an Teergrube waiting to keep the spammer online for hours on each copy he sends. > SO, if you > include antispam instructions and ANYBODY e-mails you, you're HAD. I do think that Tom should change one thing: the de-antispaming to be applied should be visible from looking at the From: line, not from going to the .sig, because most people will not do that. Also an From: with instructions will still be on screen when ones computer complains of illegal mail address, the .sig may be gone by then. > Stand up and take your spam like a MAN (or woman). Stop whinning. It was no spam, and he was not whining. Sorry that I have to break the news to you Bill, you are the one with the egg on the face this time. Heading for the flameproof cellar... -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!howland.erols.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!not-for-mail From: Marco S Hyman Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) Date: 06 Apr 1998 21:30:00 -0700 Organization: S.N.A.F.U. (www.snafu.org) Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> <3527e583.80903390@news1.Radix.Net> <1105.399T1573T13264710@sky.bus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dumbcat.codewright.com X-Trace: 891923400 22109 marc 206.86.0.12 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 "Charlie Gibbs" writes: > I ensured that not a single news posting went out with my proper > e-mail address. I haven't received one piece of junk e-mail since. I wonder if the people at bus.com (a valid domain) appreciate it as much as you do? (That sounds sarcastic, but it isn't meant to be.) // marc ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) Date: 6 Apr 1998 21:42:32 GMT Message-ID: <6gbi88$9io$5@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <352812DE.EDBA719F@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-050.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Lines: 31 On 1998-04-06 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch said: :Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers :bill_h wrote: :> Tom Stepleton wrote: :> > s/rototiller/artsci/ in my address to e-mail me... :> In a reply you said I hadn't e-mailed you. :> WRONG! the e-mail BOUNCED. because YOU intentionally mis-directed :Looks like the spam killer worked, though this time :not on a spammer. ^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^^^^ you think? given his repetitious crap about qdos, we'd beg to differ... :Well guess what: Before I started usenetting I had ca 1-2 spams a :week, that went up to 5-10 a day within 2 days. After adding an :antispam it dropped again to 1-2 a week inside 2 weeks. So :antispams work - damn good. actually, we don't get that much spam. are we missing something here? ;> it doesn't really bother us, hence the unfiltered address - however, we can quite understand anyone else feeling the need to use them. :It was no spam, and he was not whining. Sorry that I have to break :the news to you Bill, you are the one with the egg on the face this :time. nothing new under the sun... ;> -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: Scott Statton Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:43:08 -0700 Organization: Lake Shasta Systems Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3529D90C.41C67EA6@localhost.cluon.lake-shasta.ca.us> References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> <3527e583.80903390@news1.Radix.Net> <1105.399T1573T13264710@sky.bus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2873@205.178.12.237 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.4 sun4m) Marco S Hyman wrote: > > "Charlie Gibbs" writes: > > > I ensured that not a single news posting went out with my proper > > e-mail address. I haven't received one piece of junk e-mail since. > > I wonder if the people at bus.com (a valid domain) appreciate it > as much as you do? (That sounds sarcastic, but it isn't meant to > be.) > > // marc A good friend of mine runs the domain we'll call for sake of argument subyks.com ... Suppose Mister Gibbs instead of adding the superfluous dot were to reverse the string - putting his From: line as "cgibbs@subyks.com" and saying "spell subyks backwards to get to the real me". Suddenly the spam is being delivered to my poor friend's machine subyks, which unknown to Charlie was an actual machine. Well, since this is clearly a case of severe dyslexia on Charlie's part, my friend corrected the problem adding a sendmail rule that cgibbs@subyks.com --> cgibbs@skybus.com so that the mail can correctly be delivered. Motto: If you're going to attempt to spamproof your mail, that's a Good Idea. However, do make sure you don't inconvenience some OTHER poor schmoe while doing so - that's Bad Manners. (NB - I'm using Charlie as a token - he has NO relation to my friend, and is probably a sweet person, and likes puppies and hates things that suck...) --scotts ... subtract localhost (duh) to reply ###### Date: 07 Apr 98 11:10:08 -0800 From: "Charlie Gibbs" Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> <3527e583.80903390@news1.Radix.Net> <1105.399T1573T13264710@sky.bus.com> Message-ID: <599.401T412T6703573@sky.bus.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 18 X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.skybus.com Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.244.4.2!news.westel.com!news.skybus.com!204.244.247.107 In article marc@snafu.org (Marco S Hyman) writes: >"Charlie Gibbs" writes: > >> I ensured that not a single news posting went out with my proper >> e-mail address. I haven't received one piece of junk e-mail since. > >I wonder if the people at bus.com (a valid domain) appreciate it >as much as you do? (That sounds sarcastic, but it isn't meant to >be.) Well, I haven't heard any complaints from them. Now if they had a machine called "sky"... -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### Date: 07 Apr 98 11:24:33 -0800 From: "Charlie Gibbs" Subject: Re: Nicanor NIC-80 (now: spam/antispam) References: <6g6dij$qcs$2@newsreader.wustl.edu> <3527B35A.24A7@azstarnet.com> <3527e583.80903390@news1.Radix.Net> <1105.399T1573T13264710@sky.bus.com> <3529D90C.41C67EA6@localhost.cluon.lake-shasta.ca.us> Message-ID: <2466.401T1691T6845152@sky.bus.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 60 X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.skybus.com Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.244.4.2!news.westel.com!news.skybus.com!204.244.247.107 In article <3529D90C.41C67EA6@localhost.cluon.lake-shasta.ca.us> scotts@localhost.cluon.lake-shasta.ca.us (Scott Statton) writes: >Marco S Hyman wrote: > >> "Charlie Gibbs" writes: >> >> > I ensured that not a single news posting went out with my proper >> > e-mail address. I haven't received one piece of junk e-mail since. >> >> I wonder if the people at bus.com (a valid domain) appreciate it >> as much as you do? (That sounds sarcastic, but it isn't meant to >> be.) > >A good friend of mine runs the domain we'll call for sake of argument >subyks.com ... > >Suppose Mister Gibbs instead of adding the superfluous dot were to >reverse the string - putting his From: line as "cgibbs@subyks.com" >and saying "spell subyks backwards to get to the real me". > >Suddenly the spam is being delivered to my poor friend's machine >subyks, which unknown to Charlie was an actual machine. Well, since >this is clearly a case of severe dyslexia on Charlie's part, my friend >corrected the problem adding a sendmail rule that cgibbs@subyks.com --> >cgibbs@skybus.com so that the mail can correctly be delivered. Arrgh! >Motto: If you're going to attempt to spamproof your mail, that's a >Good Idea. However, do make sure you don't inconvenience some OTHER >poor schmoe while doing so - that's Bad Manners. Good point. Certainly if I found I was inconveniencing others I'd choose another spamproofing technique. But I haven't had any complaints so far. It's good to have a thread like this to discuss the possible pitfalls of spamproofing. (It's also unfortunate that such a thread is even necessary in the first place, but that's another can of worms.) We have to be careful, though, that our method isn't too easy for an address harvester to see through - one good example is embedding a string like NOSPAM in your address. If I were the kind of low-life who harvests addresses for the purpose of spamming, I'd write a program smart enough to strip out all of these obvious strings. >(NB - I'm using Charlie as a token - he has NO relation to my friend, >and is probably a sweet person, and likes puppies and hates things that >suck...) Thanks. Actually I'm a cat person, but puppies are OK (at least as long as they're someone else's :-). >--scotts ... subtract localhost (duh) to reply Ah, another technique. Let the thread continue! -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.