|
This sounds like an urban legend to me. Keep in mind that there was
some news release a few weeks ago that indicated AOL was seeing
dramatically less spam traffic. I think it is likely that AOL has
succeeded in blocking more spam, and the article was rehashed by
someone that didn't understand the topic and assumed that this meant a
drop in spam. This used to happen all the time, even in industry mags,
back when the Internet was becoming a big deal. Same thing with spam
now. I'm sure that they mess up articles about medicine, astronomy,
etc., and we just don't know enough to see through the mistakes. Matt Dan Geiser wrote: I don't get this article at all. How is this any different then sending e-mails with using domains that you have no intention of ever using? Why would you want to register the domain name and then associated yourself with a domain used in a spam mailing? And from a technical standpoint why would a distributed DNS system be overloaded by trying to lookup bogus domain names?----- Original Message ----- From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:50 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic..<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1749328,00.asp> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1749328,00.asp\ "One troublesome technique finding favor with spammers involves sendingmass -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ ===================================================== |
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic.. Matt
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic.. Andy Schmidt
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic.. Dan Geiser
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic.. William Stillwell
- Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tacti... Sanford Whiteman
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic.. S.J.Stanaitis
