23 Oct
2001
23 Oct
'01
5:29 a.m.
On Oct 23, 16:35, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Mike Ford skrev:
>Just for laughs I made a search just now of my
email address
>mikeford(a)socal.rr.comcom, and I got 233 hits via the Google usenet group
>search. I really honestly only get maybe 5 bits of spam a day, and 80%
of
>those I know I foolishly signed up for at some
time recently. Have you
>spamphobs ever considered that maybe you get a lot of spam because you
mung
>your email address, or that you don't have a
profile in any spam
databanks?
I did a Google Groups search as well, and got over 10
000 hits on my
address.
Perhaps is one subjected to spam because one is an
active netizen?
Well, I just tried a Google Groups search, for comparison, and got 14 hits.
I got 1020 from a straight Google (web) search, the majority from
ClassicCmp (at least amongst the first few screenfuls).
I don't especially like munged addresses either, but providing it's obvious
(and obvious how to undo the obfuscation) I think it may be a necessary
evil at times.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
23 Oct
23 Oct
7:22 a.m.
I don't especially like munged addresses either,
but providing it's obvious
(and obvious how to undo the obfuscation) I think it may be a necessary
evil at times.
Is there an assumption that spam address harvesters would be incapable of
replacing all occurences of 'DOT' with '.' and 'AT' with
'@' ?
7:35 a.m.
At 12:22 PM 10/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
Is there an assumption that spam address harvesters
would be incapable of
replacing all occurences of 'DOT' with '.' and 'AT' with
'@' ?
If I were writing an e-mail harvester, I'm sure
I'd have quite an extensive subroutine that looked
for known patterns of spam-avoidance, and how to
undo them. I can't fathom why otherwise smart people
assume that other smart but nasty people won't think
of the same things they did, and be able to undo them.
- John
9:01 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great John Foust once stated:
At 12:22 PM 10/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
It's a question of return on investment. Is the added complexity of
looking for DOT and AT (possibly with spaces, returns, dashes, etc) worth
the money for what you get in return?
It's hard enough slugging through typical HTML and making sense of it. I
could write:
spc​(a)​conman​.&#8203.org [1]
The spammers (or the programmers they hire) will have to understand
entities and Unicode (which browsers do) in order to clean this up, and
until enough people do this, it's not cost effective.
-spc (Or should I have written it as spc&#8203 ... ?)
[1] 8203 is the Unicode character for a zero-width space.
Is there an assumption that spam address
harvesters would be incapable of
replacing all occurences of 'DOT' with '.' and 'AT' with
'@' ?
If I were writing an e-mail harvester, I'm sure
I'd have quite an extensive subroutine that looked
for known patterns of spam-avoidance, and how to
undo them. I can't fathom why otherwise smart people
assume that other smart but nasty people won't think
of the same things they did, and be able to undo them. 
3:41 p.m.
New subject: SPAM Avoidance Re: List Maintenance
If I were writing an e-mail harvester, I'm sure
I'd have quite an extensive subroutine that looked
for known patterns of spam-avoidance, and how to
undo them.
Actually the best spam avoidance technique I've found is as follows:
if you can create email addresses for
a domain then
set your email address to be 'abuse(a)domain.name'
and make sure you're domain name isn't used
as a spam harbor (open relay mailer, etc)
All the spam harvesters apparently prune the name 'abuse' from their lists
as they don't want to send mail to the abuse addresses and get themselves
nailed.
--Chuck
8:38 p.m.
New subject: SPAM Avoidance Re: List Maintenance
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:41:10PM -0700, Chuck McManis wrote:
Please don't do that - trying to escape SPAM is not an excuse to
violate well established standards. Please have a look at RFC 2142.
Regards,
Alex.
--
q: If you were young again, would you start writing TeX again or would
you use Microsoft Word, or another word processor?
a: I hope to die before I *have* to use Microsoft Word.
-- <unknown person> asking Donald E. Knuth
If I were writing an e-mail harvester, I'm
sure
I'd have quite an extensive subroutine that looked
for known patterns of spam-avoidance, and how to
undo them.
Actually the best spam avoidance technique I've found is as follows:
if you can create email addresses for
a domain then
set your email address to be 'abuse(a)domain.name'
and make sure you're domain name isn't used
as a spam harbor (open relay mailer, etc)
24 Oct
24 Oct
6:35 a.m.
New subject: SPAM Avoidance Re: List Maintenance
At 01:38 AM 10/24/01, Alex wrote:
Please don't do that - trying to escape SPAM is not
an excuse to
violate well established standards. Please have a look at RFC 2142.
I don't think it violates that RFC, I am after all the contact person if
someone has a problem with my domain...
--Chuck
8461
days inactive
8462
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
als＠thangorodrim.de -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
pete＠dunnington.u-net.com -
spc＠conman.org