Hence, check your trash/deleted folder and then create message filters for any legitimate emails it contains, then run your message filters against your trash/deleted folder to move the legitimate emails out of there and into your "Inbox" folder or whatever other appropriate folders - and these legitimate emails will then no longer be trapped as spam/scam emails. What these 'not spam/scam' message filters should contain and check for is up to you.
On 22/09/2020 18:42, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Many of us receive legitimate e-mail from unknown senders, or from known > senders with new addresses. > > The e-mail addresses in headers are not trustworthy. Digital signatures are > only trustworthy if you got the public key from a trusted source. > > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of > CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 10:18 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Caution: "Hacked" email caused the distribution of a potentially > harmful attachment > > FWIW > > (a) Begin by assuming that *all* received emails are spam/scam (and > define this as the bottom line catch-all message filter) *unless* a > higher up message filter recognizes both the sender(s)'s and the 'to' > recipient's addresses as valid. > (b) The sender's original email address can be found towards the end in > the message headers, as in the "received from ... for ..." message > header line. > (c) Spam/scam emails can be sent to > https://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=loginform for verification, if need be. > > The 'trick' to get around spammers/scammers is to use message filters, > with the bottom line catch-all filter saying something like "if the > subject does not contain <whatever random alphanumeric characters> *and* > the sender is not <whatever more random chars>@<whatever else> then save > the email in the trash/delete folder" - which then ensures that the > email is never saved in the "Inbox" folder. > > A more skilful 'trick' is to have many different email IDs and give out > a different email ID to every company, individual etc. (and keep a > record of which email ID was given to whom) - so that, if a spammer or > scammer gets hold of it, it can be deleted and a replacement new email > ID can be created ... and then also determine from whom the > spammer/scammer harvested the old and now deleted email ID. That kills > off spammers and scammers, because any further emails sent to the old > email ID just bounce as "undeliverable" and they cannot guess what the > new email ID is. But that requires owning one or more domain names and > being able to create/delete email IDs associated with it/them. (I > have/use more than 200 email IDs across more than 30 domain names.) > > HTH. > > Cheers, Chris Poncelet (retired sysprog) > > > > On 22/09/2020 00:04, Bob Bridges wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 17:08 >> >> JR> The idea of deliberately dumbing down language in spam is preposterous. >> First of all I don't understand the purported logic of it. >> >> BB> Radoslaw's logic seemed clear to me, but when I set out to spell it out >> for you, I began to wonder whether I'd mistaken it. He wrote "a method to >> filter out bright people and leave only the fools", which I interpreted this >> way: Intelligent people (according to Radoslaw) are less likely to produce >> profit for the scammer, in the long run. If the scam is written badly, an >> intelligent person is more likely to throw it out, and thus less likely to >> waste the scammer's time with replies that will in the end lead nowhere. >> Fools, meanwhile, will not notice (or notice less) the atrocious writing, >> and thus be more likely to proceed. >> >> I'll leave it to him to say whether I read him correctly. But ~if~ that is >> indeed the scammer's motive for writing badly, I think the scammer isn't >> thinking very clearly. >> >> The next part of your comment I think is just a confusion about who said >> what. I said Nigerians are mostly capable of better English than I see in >> "Nigerian old ministers' " emails, but that's just a side comment, not part >> of Radoslaw's reasoning. >> >> JR> More important, while English is an official language in Nigeria, it is >> no one's mother tongue. It's learned, mostly in school, to whatever >> proficiency the learner can achieve. The average spammer has probably never >> stepped inside university. Even secondary school certification is >> improbable. Add to that the 'dialectical' difference between Nigerian and >> American English makes it unlikely that the most fluent spammer could write >> something of undetectable of origin. >> >> BB> I don't buy that last part. I have no idea how many spammers have been >> to University, or secondary school, but they can't ~all~ be illiterate and >> therefore it's not unlikely - just the reverse - that some of them will be >> able to compose a grammatically correct email. No one said anything about >> "undetectable"; for verisimilitude you'd want ~some~ degree of >> "foreign-ness". >> >> --- >> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 >> >> /* ...in your bedchamber do not curse a king, and in your sleeping rooms do >> not curse a rich man, for a bird of the heavens will carry the sound, and >> the winged creature will make the matter known. -Ecclesiastes 10:20 */ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of >> Bob Bridges >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 10:19 AM >> >> Interesting hypothesis. I always supposed that they were badly written >> either because a) scammers don't care (which is perhaps another way of >> saying they're illiterate, or b) these Nigerian-oil-minister scams actually >> are written by foreigners whose English is bad - not, perhaps, by actual >> Nigerians, whose English is usually better than that - or c) they want to >> ~appear~ to be written by Nigerians. It never occurred to me that it might >> be an anti-intelligence filter. >> >> But then, I take it as an article of faith that it's not intelligence >> that'll save you from being scammed. It's not the smart people who fall for >> "I want you to handle my money for me"; it's the greedy ones. And greedy >> people are foolish, but they're not necessarily stupid. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of R.S. >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 10:00 >> >> 3. Puzzle: why Nigerian scam emails are so horribly written? I mean a lot of >> language mistakes. The answer is this is intentional. This is a method to >> filter out bright people and leave only the fools. Only fool people are good >> candidates to further steps of scam, which are expensive because that >> require manwork. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> . >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > . > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
