30 Jan
2002
30 Jan
'02
2:14 a.m.
Did this joker susbscribe to the list, spam it and then un-sub?
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jonathan Willis wrote:
[blnk.gif] [blnk.gif]
Click To Order
the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a
Reply email with the words "Remove" written in the Subject line.
Which in turn will verify that your address is indeed valid and your
incoming spam rate will rise by at least 2 orders of magnitude after they
sell your address to a few thousand more spammers.
g.
29 Jan
29 Jan
7:21 p.m.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Tothwolf wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Gene Buckle wrote:
You don't need to be a subscriber to post a message to classiccmp. I
think 3 spams in one month is enough evidence that perhaps we need to
finally do away with this convenient anachronism. It's unfortunate but I
think it's in the best interest of our beloved mailing list.
Did this joker susbscribe to the list, spam it
and then un-sub?
He appears to have sub'd, harvested the addresses, and moved on. (Yes, I got a copy of this spam too)
Of course, as did everyone else who is currently subscribed :)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
30 Jan
30 Jan
4:47 a.m.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote:
I didn't look at the reply-to address earlier, but I later saw that it was
sent directly to the list.
-Toth
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Tothwolf wrote:
Ah, didn't know that. Most all the other mailing lists I'm on have
switched to moderated posts from non subscribers for the same reason.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Gene Buckle wrote:
You don't need to be a subscriber to post a message to classiccmp. I
think 3 spams in one month is enough evidence that perhaps we need to
finally do away with this convenient anachronism. It's unfortunate but I
think it's in the best interest of our beloved mailing list. Did this joker susbscribe to the list, spam it
and then un-sub?
He appears to have sub'd, harvested the addresses, and moved on. (Yes, I got a
copy of this spam too)
Of course, as did everyone else who is currently subscribed :) 
4:50 a.m.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote:
I DIDN'T!! I really don't think that I got it and failed to see it.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
You don't need to be a subscriber to post a
message to classiccmp. I
think 3 spams in one month is enough evidence that perhaps we need to
finally do away with this convenient anachronism. It's unfortunate but I
think it's in the best interest of our beloved mailing list.
What are the BENEFITS of having open posting? How often do we get
non-subscribers posting about stuff to rescue?
Is THREE enough to warrant closing it?
(Yes, I got a
copy of this spam too)
Of course, as did everyone else who is currently subscribed
:)
2:59 a.m.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
What are the BENEFITS of having open posting?
Being able to post from a different account when you're away from your own
computer? Not a very good reason. Otherwise, none.
How often do we get non-subscribers posting about
stuff to rescue?
Not enough to put up with spam.
Is THREE enough to warrant closing it?
One was enough as far as I'm concerned.
I DIDN'T!! I really don't think that I got it
and failed to see it.
You must have. It went to the list. Unless you have some sort of spam
filtering on?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
12:27 p.m.
What are the
BENEFITS of having open posting?
Being able to post from a different account when
you're away from your own
computer? Not a very good reason. Otherwise, none. How often do
we get non-subscribers posting about stuff to rescue?
Not enough to put up with
spam. You must have. It went to the list. Unless you have
some sort of spam
filtering on?
Not on this domain. I don't want to turn away customers until
after I
meet them. So, I must have gotten it and deleted it without ever noticing
it! Conditioned reflex? Or maybe I thought that it was further stuff
about BNCs from certain people.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
1:39 p.m.
New subject: A Special Announcement From Dish Network and the Armor SecurityCorporation
Once every ten days, I just click delete.
It's really the sensible solution.
"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote:
I DIDN'T!! I really don't think that I got it and failed to see it.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
You don't need to be a subscriber to post a
message to classiccmp. I
think 3 spams in one month is enough evidence that perhaps we need to
finally do away with this convenient anachronism. It's unfortunate but I
think it's in the best interest of our beloved mailing list.
What are the BENEFITS of having open posting? How often do we get
non-subscribers posting about stuff to rescue?
Is THREE enough to warrant closing it?
(Yes, I
got a copy of this spam too)
Of course, as did everyone else who is currently
subscribed :) 
7 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
At 09:21 AM 30/01/2002 +0000, you wrote:
You don't need to be a subscriber to post a message
to classiccmp. I
think 3 spams in one month is enough evidence that perhaps we need to
finally do away with this convenient anachronism. It's unfortunate but I
think it's in the best interest of our beloved mailing list.
The only problem might be that it would make it more difficult for new
collectors to subscribe to the list.
Regards
Charlie Fox
Charles E. Fox Video Production
793 Argyle Rd.
Windsor Ontario Canada N8Y 3J8
519-254-4991 foxvideo(a)wincom.net
Check out the "Camcorder Kindergarten"
at http://chasfoxvideo.com
(Yes, I got a copy of this spam too)
Of course, as did everyone else who is currently subscribed :)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com * 
8:36 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Speaking of SPAM, this may be a little off-topic, but it does peratain
to computer collecting and restoration, in that e-mail is somewhat
necessary for such activities. Have many others found that their ISPs
are blocking entire domains and that legitimate e-mail is refused
(bounced) with a "go away" error message? I'm all for limiting SPAM,
but the blocking out of entire domains of legitimate ISPs is as bad as
the SPAM; it's equivalent to the telephone company blocking out
incoming calls from entire area codes, or regions, because of
telemarketers and seems to defeat the purpose of e-mail, or the
post-office banning the delivery of mail from entire zip-codes or
regions.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
8:40 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
The biggest problem now what spammers are that they are using legitimate
domains and spoofing real email address' to get their spam out to victims.
Yahoo.com is most likely going to end up on the Remote Blackhole List if
they continue to be hijacked by spammers, its becoming worse and worse as
time goes by.
Curt
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
Speaking of SPAM, this may be a little off-topic, but
it does peratain
to computer collecting and restoration, in that e-mail is somewhat
necessary for such activities. Have many others found that their ISPs
are blocking entire domains and that legitimate e-mail is refused
(bounced) with a "go away" error message? I'm all for limiting SPAM,
but the blocking out of entire domains of legitimate ISPs is as bad as
the SPAM; it's equivalent to the telephone company blocking out
incoming calls from entire area codes, or regions, because of
telemarketers and seems to defeat the purpose of e-mail, or the
post-office banning the delivery of mail from entire zip-codes or
regions.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other
animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature
&
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures,
using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
8:17 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Curt Vendel wrote:
The biggest problem now what spammers are that they are using legitimate
domains and spoofing real email address' to get their spam out to victims.
Yahoo.com is most likely going to end up on the Remote Blackhole List if
they continue to be hijacked by spammers, its becoming worse and worse as
time goes by.
I think allot of the spam is Yahoo generated. I rarely view
a geocities page because all the stupid popups. No I don't
want a CAM for my PC...
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
5:34 p.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Though probably just for this reason, after Jan 31 Yahoo requires
sender auth to go through their smtp server...
Bill McDermith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Curt Vendel wrote:
>
> The biggest problem now what spammers are that they are using legitimate
> domains and spoofing real email address' to get their spam out to
victims.
> Yahoo.com is most likely going to end up on the
Remote Blackhole List if
> they continue to be hijacked by spammers, its becoming worse and worse
as
time goes by.
I think allot of the spam is Yahoo generated. I rarely view
a geocities page because all the stupid popups. No I don't
want a CAM for my PC...
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
8:42 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
On 30 Jan 2002, R. D. Davis wrote:
Speaking of SPAM, this may be a little off-topic, but
it does peratain
to computer collecting and restoration, in that e-mail is somewhat
necessary for such activities. Have many others found that their ISPs
are blocking entire domains and that legitimate e-mail is refused
(bounced) with a "go away" error message? I'm all for limiting SPAM,
but the blocking out of entire domains of legitimate ISPs is as bad as
the SPAM; it's equivalent to the telephone company blocking out
incoming calls from entire area codes, or regions, because of
telemarketers and seems to defeat the purpose of e-mail, or the
post-office banning the delivery of mail from entire zip-codes or
regions.
Well, my ISP's mailservers seem to end up on ORBZ' blacklist every 6-8
months. This can make talking to other folks via email very difficult. Is
this the kind of thing you are talking about?
-Toth
9:02 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Depends on how they are doing it, and why IMHO.
We will block reception or transmittal of any mail that originates or is
destined to a mail server (MX record for the domain) that is known to be an
open relay. We consider an open relay to be a misconfigured (and likely
compromised) system. It is our right to not allow our server to come in
contact with such systems, as any contact with them is almost certainly
going to transit spam. Bear in mind that it only blocks mail traveling
through OUR server.
Don't try and say there are valid reasons for making a mail server an open
relay, there aren't. Period. No valid reason, ever.
Our method of determining an open relay is the ordb database, as well as
mail-abuse via a "DNS" lookup to their databases. It is completely
voluntary, and only affects what systems MY mail servers talk to. Both
organizations have proven to be pretty reliable in checking before putting a
server in their database, and getting it out quickly once the server admin
decides to become just a tiny bit responsible.
If you are talking about other things than open relay checking, I'd like to
know the specifics....remember, if the ISP is a responsible, reasoned admin,
he has every right to block traffic through his servers in the interest of
protecting his network - that's their sworn duty after all.
Jay West
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
Speaking of SPAM, this may be a little off-topic, but
it does peratain
to computer collecting and restoration, in that e-mail is somewhat
necessary for such activities. Have many others found that their ISPs
are blocking entire domains and that legitimate e-mail is refused
(bounced) with a "go away" error message? I'm all for limiting SPAM,
but the blocking out of entire domains of legitimate ISPs is as bad as
the SPAM; it's equivalent to the telephone company blocking out
incoming calls from entire area codes, or regions, because of
telemarketers and seems to defeat the purpose of e-mail, or the
post-office banning the delivery of mail from entire zip-codes or
regions.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other
animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature
&
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures,
using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
9:15 a.m.
New subject: (OT): Re: spam/avoidance of
Seems to me that blocking an entire area code or zip code, while extreme,
would be an incentive to those in charge of the area or zip code to get
their house in order. In this case, it means that they need to police those
they're selling services to, and to quit looking the other way at
downstreams that spam or offer spam support services (e.g. "remove"
services, hosted advertising, email) rather than chase the easy money
associated with pink business. It's probably the only thing keep even more
providers from selling out entirely to spammers, IMO.
but the blocking out of entire domains of legitimate
ISPs is as bad as
the SPAM; it's equivalent to the telephone company blocking out
incoming calls from entire area codes, or regions, because of
telemarketers and seems to defeat the purpose of e-mail, or the
post-office banning the delivery of mail from entire zip-codes or
regions.
9:59 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Easy fix. Use hotmail to tell your friends to use ISPs that aren't so
spammer friendly that they get blacklisted.
g.
On 30 Jan 2002, R. D. Davis wrote:
Speaking of SPAM, this may be a little off-topic, but
it does peratain
to computer collecting and restoration, in that e-mail is somewhat
necessary for such activities. Have many others found that their ISPs
are blocking entire domains and that legitimate e-mail is refused
(bounced) with a "go away" error message? I'm all for limiting SPAM,
but the blocking out of entire domains of legitimate ISPs is as bad as
the SPAM; it's equivalent to the telephone company blocking out
incoming calls from entire area codes, or regions, because of
telemarketers and seems to defeat the purpose of e-mail, or the
post-office banning the delivery of mail from entire zip-codes or
regions.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
9:05 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
At 03:59 PM 1/30/02 -0800, you wrote:
Easy fix. Use hotmail to tell your friends to use ISPs
that aren't so
spammer friendly that they get blacklisted.
g.
not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist from spoofed headers,
there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
9:11 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
That is just simply not true.
While there may be a few tiny blacklist setups that put a domain on the list
without checking it out directly themselves, NO blacklist organization of
any size, or one that is even on the radar screen, does this.
All of the ones that are even barely commonly known, only put a system on
the blacklist after THEY have tested it themselves. Anyone can submit a
domain, but it will be tested by them for an actual open relay before they
put it on the list.
Jay West
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Reed" <geoffr(a)zipcon.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
At 03:59 PM 1/30/02 -0800, you wrote:
Easy fix. Use hotmail to tell your friends to use
ISPs that aren't so
spammer friendly that they get blacklisted.
g.
not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist from spoofed headers,
there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
10:27 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
At 03:59 PM 1/30/02 -0800, you wrote:
I've never even heard of such a thing. The only blacklist I pay any
attention to (Vixie's) act responsibly about such things.
g.
Easy fix. Use hotmail to tell your friends to use
ISPs that aren't so
spammer friendly that they get blacklisted.
g.
not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist from spoofed headers,
there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
10:49 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Geoff Reed wrote:
not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist from
spoofed headers,
there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
That is true. Some? of the blacklists will blacklist any site that COULD
be used, based entirely on whether they have things like reverse DNS
configured properly.
How about an entire Community College being blacklisted (without ever
having been hijacked)? And the "Network Administrator" is apparently not
capable of fixing it!
3:19 p.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Yup, and there's a couple of the blacklist operators that I have had the
displeasure of dealing with, their software blacklists your domain if their
test message is accepted by your MTA. I was using rulesets that accepted
some questionable emails but never delivered them if they failed several
post acceptance checks. they blacklisted that domain because of it.
At 04:49 PM 1/30/02 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Geoff Reed wrote:
not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist
from spoofed headers,
there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
That is true. Some? of the blacklists will blacklist any site that COULD
be used, based entirely on whether they have things like reverse DNS
configured properly.
How about an entire Community College being blacklisted (without ever
having been hijacked)? And the "Network Administrator" is apparently not
capable of fixing it! 
8:07 p.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Geoff Reed wrote:
I remember when Dalnet blacklisted AOL users for several months. Really
put the dampers on my IRC activities, as one of my better friends was an
AOL subscriber.
What really is needed is stronger rules on unsolicited e-mails. Maybe
something like a no-send list, like we have here in Missouri for
telemarketers.
Gary Hildebrand
not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist
from spoofed headers,
there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
That is true. Some? of the blacklists will blacklist any site that COULD
be used, based entirely on whether they have things like reverse DNS
configured properly.
How about an entire Community College being blacklisted (without ever
having been hijacked)? And the "Network Administrator" is apparently not
capable of fixing it! 
10:08 p.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Hildebrand" <ghldbrd(a)ccp.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 05:07 AM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
I remember when Dalnet blacklisted AOL users for several months. Really
put the dampers on my IRC activities, as one of my better friends was an
AOL subscriber.
What really is needed is stronger rules on unsolicited e-mails. Maybe
something like a no-send list, like we have here in Missouri for
telemarketers.
Ohhh, not such a good idea. A no-call list works with telemarketers because
ma bell _knows_ who's making the calls, and the 3733+3 phreaks who have the
skill to skip that little annoyance aren't the same as the ones who spam.
Spam mostly comes from computers with open relays-- the phone equivalent
would be telemarketers calling from phones people left sitting in the
windowsill or on the front porch when they're outta town. Spammers would
see the no-call list as the Holy Grail of verified email lists.
Gary Hildebrand
Bob
31 Jan
31 Jan
5:52 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Gary Hildebrand wrote:
"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" wrote:
California has a law as cited in the the following paragraphs:
Unsolicited commercial e-mail is in direct violation of the California
Business & Professions Code Section 17538.4 which provides that all
unsolicited commercial e-mail transmissions to California residents
must meet certain requirements.
Failure to comply with any of the rules is a criminal offense
punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment for each
offense. In addition, individuals may file civil actions to seek
injunctive relief.
==================
I have no idea how many Californians are aware of it, or have taken
advantage of the penalty part.
- don
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Geoff Reed wrote:
I remember when Dalnet blacklisted AOL users for several months. Really
put the dampers on my IRC activities, as one of my better friends was an
AOL subscriber.
What really is needed is stronger rules on unsolicited e-mails. Maybe
something like a no-send list, like we have here in Missouri for
telemarketers.
Gary Hildebrand not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist
from spoofed headers,
there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
That is true. Some? of the blacklists will blacklist any site that COULD
be used, based entirely on whether they have things like reverse DNS
configured properly.
How about an entire Community College being blacklisted (without ever
having been hijacked)? And the "Network Administrator" is apparently not
capable of fixing it! 
7:20 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Rumor has it that Don Maslin may have mentioned these words:
California has a law as cited in the the following
paragraphs:
Unsolicited commercial e-mail is in direct violation of the California
Business & Professions Code Section 17538.4 which provides that all
unsolicited commercial e-mail transmissions to California residents
must meet certain requirements.
Failure to comply with any of the rules is a criminal offense
punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment for each
offense. In addition, individuals may file civil actions to seek
injunctive relief.
==================
I have no idea how many Californians are aware of it, or have taken
advantage of the penalty part.
or have actually been able to find the spammers to send them the bill /
subpoena...
With the ability to spoof almost every header of SMTP traffic, tracking the
spammers is quite difficult.
Before UCE is stomped dead in it's tracks, SMTP has to go away, and be
replaced by a more responsible infrastructure, that would hold people
accountable for the use of their accounts.
ISP's should also be held accountable - if a spammer hits an ISP and the
ISP kills the account & blacklists the person/company, then the ISP is not
at fault. However, if there are some ISP's that can't/won't take
responsibility for the management of their servers (i.e. open relaying, no
accountability of the users, etc.) then these ISP's should also be part of
the criminal offense.
I'm co-owner of an ISP, so I'm not picking on folks I don't know anything
about...
Hit 'em in the pocketbook, or hit 'em in the nose - but until the
responsible people can actually find the bad guys to hit 'em, the situation
will never change. :-(
Back ontopic (kinda) - Anyone know how to boot OS-9 on my Palm? :-)
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
30 Jan
30 Jan
9:09 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
While sometimes the ISP's are in fact spammer friendly, most of the time
it's incompetent admins who leave an open relay condition in place through
neglect or ignorance. And even then, most of the time it is the system admin
of an end user of the ISP, not the ISP itself.
Jay West
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Buckle" <geneb(a)deltasoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
Easy fix. Use hotmail to tell your friends to use
ISPs that aren't so
spammer friendly that they get blacklisted.
g.
On 30 Jan 2002, R. D. Davis wrote:
> Speaking of SPAM, this may be a little off-topic, but it does peratain
> to computer collecting and restoration, in that e-mail is somewhat
> necessary for such activities. Have many others found that their ISPs
> are blocking entire domains and that legitimate e-mail is refused
> (bounced) with a "go away" error message? I'm all for limiting SPAM,
> but the blocking out of entire domains of legitimate ISPs is as bad as
> the SPAM; it's equivalent to the telephone company blocking out
> incoming calls from entire area codes, or regions, because of
> telemarketers and seems to defeat the purpose of e-mail, or the
> post-office banning the delivery of mail from entire zip-codes or
> regions.
>
> --
> Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other
animals:
> All Rights Reserved an unnatural
belief that we're above
Nature &
> rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other
creatures, using dogma to
justify such
> http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to
justify much human
cruelty.
10:45 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Gene Buckle wrote:
Easy fix. Use hotmail to tell your friends to use
ISPs that aren't so
spammer friendly that they get blacklisted.
That's fine for my friends. I can contact you.
But what about my CUSTOMERS?
Somebody who I've never met wants to buy. But my ISP that hosts my domain
bounces his mail.
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
PO Box 1236 (510) 558-9366
Berkeley, CA 94701-1236
NOTE: My ISP is having difficulties. If you have problems reaching me at
this e-mail address, you can leave a message at:
fcisin(a)merritt.edu
31 Jan
31 Jan
2:56 a.m.
New subject: spam/avoidance of
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
That's fine for my friends. I can contact you.
But what about my CUSTOMERS?
Somebody who I've never met wants to buy. But my ISP that hosts my domain
bounces his mail.
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
PO Box 1236 (510) 558-9366
Berkeley, CA 94701-1236
NOTE: My ISP is having difficulties. If you have problems reaching me at
this e-mail address, you can leave a message at:
fcisin(a)merritt.edu
Jerome Fine replies:
I just suggested adding 4 random characters (36 ** 4 = 1,679,616) to my
e-mail address. In your case <cisinpr5a(a)xenosoft.com> could be an
example. When too much spam starts to find your way, then change.
A fall back (either permanent or just when the current one is deactivated)
is to replace the 4 characters in front of @ with the current 4 digit year.
So my reply e-mail address could be <jhfinec6kz(a)idirect.com> with a
fall back of <jhfine2001(a)idirect.com> up until the end of last month.
This year would be the next value. This would not work if everyone
used the same replacement characters, but that could be any simple
description without actually naming it so the letters could be picked
out by a search program. The benefit of the 4 digit year is that it
changes automatically every twelve months. Is that sufficient?
And if only a few thousand individuals use it right now, it should be
very effective just for us if we don't advertise it.
I am probably going to change ISP shortly and I will need a new e-mail
address in any case. So I would like to be more prepared? Any one
else also have a suggestion?
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
30 Jan
30 Jan
3:23 a.m.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Tothwolf wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Gene Buckle wrote:
I'm getting noticeably more spam per day now too. I think I'll change my
email address used for this list, and in the future all mail to this list
will be From: "Jeffrey S. Sharp" <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>rg>.
I still get more spam from my university than from any other place. No, I
don't want to buy a class ring. No, I don't want to help the football
team fight cancer. You get the picture.
I responded angrily to a college spammer once, demanding that my address
be removed from their list. The next day I was summoned to the Dean of
Engineering's office and asked why I had sent such hateful, vulgar email
to his secretary. They demanded an apology, citing the anti-free-speech
rules that the University of Oklahoma has. I almost sued the hell out of
them, but I was a weenie and caved in.
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)subatomix.com
Did this joker susbscribe to the list, spam it
and then un-sub?
He appears to have sub'd, harvested the addresses, and moved on. (Yes,
I got a copy of this spam too) 
2:36 a.m.
New subject: A Special Announcement From Dish Network and the Armor SecurityCorporation
Maybe slightly OT, but...
Right! The best way to fight spam is not to react at all: even spammers
will let dead people alone.
However, there's one thing that is even better than playing "dead man":
"teergrubing" (see
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/teergrube.html for the
word, and if that sounds interesting, the FAQ is
http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/usenet/teergrube.en.html)
I love the idea!
Andreas
Gene Buckle wrote:
Did this joker susbscribe to the list, spam it and then un-sub?
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jonathan Willis wrote:
--
Andreas Freiherr
Vishay Semiconductor GmbH, Heilbronn, Germany
http://www.vishay.com
[blnk.gif] [blnk.gif]
Click To Order
the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a
Reply email with the words "Remove" written in the Subject line.
Which in turn will verify that your address is indeed valid and your
incoming spam rate will rise by at least 2 orders of magnitude after they
sell your address to a few thousand more spammers.
g.
1:49 p.m.
New subject: Anti-Spam Questions? (Was: A Special Announcement From Dish Network and the Armor SecurityCorporation)
Andreas Freiherr wrote:
Maybe slightly OT, but...
Right! The best way to fight spam is not to react at all: even spammers
will let dead people alone.
However, there's one thing that is even better than playing "dead man":
"teergrubing" (see
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/teergrube.html for the
word, and if that sounds interesting, the FAQ is
http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/usenet/teergrube.en.html)
I love the idea!
Andreas
Jerome Fine replies:
I also find that spam is annoying and I was wondering if there is anything
an individual can do except to change to a different e-mail address? In that
respect, can anyone suggest how long an e-mail address needs to be unavailable
before the spam will stop for that address?
I realize that changing my e-mail address constantly will be very inconvenient.
Is there any other way to completely stop spam other than by not giving
out my e-mail address? Has anyone tried changing their e-mail address
to stop spam and about how long does this seem to work?
I am almost certain to be changing to a different ISP in the next few months,
so my e-mail address will need to change in any case. I was thinking of adding
Jan, Feb, etc. for each month in turn. Can anyone suggest if once a month is
more frequent than needed? JFM, AMJ, JAS, OND would do if every three
months is sufficient. I could instead use an extra 3 characters at random
and just change them when the spam volume becomes too high, but that might
prevent someone from sending me an e-mail more than a few weeks later.
Or might three letters for the month be OK as a public e-mail address that only
needs to be used when someone attempts to contact me after a random three
character "addendum" to the address has been cancelled, but would never be
used in normal correspondence? If that is so, any spam to that e-mail address
would obviously be unsolicited at the least and difficult to "mine" at best.
Perhaps if all of us made some suggestions, the above might be completely
unsatisfactory, but some sort of anti-spam mechanism could be developed
that was both simple and effective? I think this might be a very useful thread.
In addition, one thing that also might help that I have found - before I run through
my e-mails, I try to remember to turn OFF my internet connection. Since I am
on a dial-up modem, this is normal for me in any case. When I do so, I notice
that more than half the spam I receive attempt to connect to a "home" site to
download additional bytes. Can anyone tell me if that could provide the site
with my e-mail address (not to mention other stuff) for my system? By blocking
the internet connection, I presume that presents any feedback. That has not
stopped the spam, however.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
31 Jan
31 Jan
12:59 a.m.
New subject: Anti-Spam Questions? (Was: A Special Announcement From Dish Network and the Armor SecurityCorporation)
When I was with Qwest.net, I received very little spam, but I also gave
my email address to very few companies, and NEVER posted to Usenet with
it (even spam-ified)...
When I switched to Earthlink, my mailbox was full of spam before I even
got the DSL line connected. I turned on their 'Spaminator' filter, and
haven't received any since. YMMV.
Since most of these people are sending email out to a CDROM full of
addresses, playing dead doesn't help. I occasionally get junk mail at
work that lists a few other addresses, and one had two of MY old
addresses from 10 years ago.
Clint
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jerome Fine wrote:
Andreas
Freiherr wrote:
Maybe slightly OT, but...
Right! The best way to fight spam is not to react at all: even spammers
will let dead people alone.
However, there's one thing that is even better than playing "dead man":
"teergrubing" (see
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/teergrube.html for the
word, and if that sounds interesting, the FAQ is
http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/usenet/teergrube.en.html)
I love the idea!
Andreas
Jerome Fine replies:
I also find that spam is annoying and I was wondering if there is anything
an individual can do except to change to a different e-mail address? In that
respect, can anyone suggest how long an e-mail address needs to be unavailable
before the spam will stop for that address?
I realize that changing my e-mail address constantly will be very inconvenient.
Is there any other way to completely stop spam other than by not giving
out my e-mail address? Has anyone tried changing their e-mail address
to stop spam and about how long does this seem to work?
I am almost certain to be changing to a different ISP in the next few months,
so my e-mail address will need to change in any case. I was thinking of adding
Jan, Feb, etc. for each month in turn. Can anyone suggest if once a month is
more frequent than needed? JFM, AMJ, JAS, OND would do if every three
months is sufficient. I could instead use an extra 3 characters at random
and just change them when the spam volume becomes too high, but that might
prevent someone from sending me an e-mail more than a few weeks later.
Or might three letters for the month be OK as a public e-mail address that only
needs to be used when someone attempts to contact me after a random three
character "addendum" to the address has been cancelled, but would never be
used in normal correspondence? If that is so, any spam to that e-mail address
would obviously be unsolicited at the least and difficult to "mine" at best.
Perhaps if all of us made some suggestions, the above might be completely
unsatisfactory, but some sort of anti-spam mechanism could be developed
that was both simple and effective? I think this might be a very useful thread.
In addition, one thing that also might help that I have found - before I run through
my e-mails, I try to remember to turn OFF my internet connection. Since I am
on a dial-up modem, this is normal for me in any case. When I do so, I notice
that more than half the spam I receive attempt to connect to a "home" site to
download additional bytes. Can anyone tell me if that could provide the site
with my e-mail address (not to mention other stuff) for my system? By blocking
the internet connection, I presume that presents any feedback. That has not
stopped the spam, however.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
2:23 a.m.
New subject: Anti-Spam Questions? (Was: A Special Announcement ...)
Clint Wolff (VAX collector) wrote:
When I was with Qwest.net, I received very little
spam, but I also gave
my email address to very few companies, and NEVER posted to Usenet with
it (even spam-ified)...
Jerome Fine replies:
Well, Usenet is where I would like to be able to have individuals respond from.
Can anyone suggest how to set up an e-mail address that can be easily
modified with human instructions of a few words, but is not able to be
mined by a spam search program? I could probably add 4 extra random
letters to my name (in front of the @) and have them replaced by the 4 digits
for the year (2002) and change that every year as required. The fall back
to the year would only be used when the 4 random character version is
deactivated due to too much spam. Has anyone ever tried this method?
Or the 4 extra random characters could always be fake?
When I switched to Earthlink, my mailbox was full of
spam before I even
got the DSL line connected. I turned on their 'Spaminator' filter, and
haven't received any since. YMMV.
Does that mean that Earthlink was "selling" your e-mail address?
Since most of these people are sending email out to a
CDROM full of
addresses, playing dead doesn't help. I occasionally get junk mail at
work that lists a few other addresses, and one had two of MY old
addresses from 10 years ago.
What will happen when junk e-mail to dead addresses accounts for
99% of all e-mail traffic? Is there any way that the source for every
e-mail could be made a part of the internet protocol? That would be
required as the first step in stopping unsolicited e-mail messages.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
3:06 a.m.
New subject: Anti-Spam Questions? (Was: A Special Announcement ...)
What I do is use a HOTMAIL address as the address advertised for replies on
the usenet. The result is that HOTMAIL gets my usenet replies, which aren't
that many, and, since HOTMAIL already has bulk-mail filtering in place, it
finds bulk mailings and routes them to a "junk-mail" mailbox, which I can, if
I wish, peruse when I have time, or, it automatically ages and then dumps them
after two weeks. It's not perfect, but it's pretty useful. Moreover, you can
see what sorts of things fall through their spam filters and subsequently
"block" them from your primary mailbox. That way, you eventually get rid of
some of them. Unfortunately, the email tools provided by HOTMAIL are rather
lame, but it's that or have the extra distraction on my other email accounts.
Of course, one big problem with spam filtering is that the spammers only use
each email address once. The consequence is that blocking them does
absolutely no good.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerome Fine" <jhfine(a)postoffice.idirect.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Questions? (Was: A Special Announcement ...)
from.
Clint Wolff
(VAX collector) wrote:
When I was with Qwest.net, I received very little
spam, but I also gave
my email address to very few companies, and NEVER posted to Usenet with
it (even spam-ified)...
Jerome Fine replies:
Well, Usenet is where I would like to be able to have individuals respond Can anyone suggest how to set up an e-mail address
that can be easily
modified with human instructions of a few words, but is not able to be
mined by a spam search program? I could probably add 4 extra random
letters to my name (in front of the @) and have them replaced by the 4
digits
for the year (2002) and change that every year as
required. The fall back
to the year would only be used when the 4 random character version is
deactivated due to too much spam. Has anyone ever tried this method?
Or the 4 extra random characters could always be fake?
When I switched to Earthlink, my mailbox was full
of spam before I even
got the DSL line connected. I turned on their 'Spaminator' filter, and
haven't received any since. YMMV.
Does that mean that Earthlink was "selling" your e-mail address?
Since most of these people are sending email out
to a CDROM full of
addresses, playing dead doesn't help. I occasionally get junk mail at
work that lists a few other addresses, and one had two of MY old
addresses from 10 years ago.
What will happen when junk e-mail to dead addresses accounts for
99% of all e-mail traffic? Is there any way that the source for every
e-mail could be made a part of the internet protocol? That would be
required as the first step in stopping unsolicited e-mail messages.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
8142
days inactive
8143
days old
34 comments
23 participants
participants (23)
-
Andreas.Freiherr＠Vishay.com -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bill_mcdermith＠yahoo.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
curt＠atari-history.com -
donm＠cts.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
foxvideo＠wincom.net -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
geoffr＠zipcon.net -
ghldbrd＠ccp.com -
jhfine＠idirect.com -
jhfine＠postoffice.idirect.com -
jss＠subatomix.com -
passerm＠umkc.edu -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
rschaefe＠gcfn.org -
tothwolf＠concentric.net -
vaxman＠earthlink.net -
vze2mnvr＠verizon.net -
west＠tseinc.com -
zmerch＠30below.com