Saturday, September 25, 1999, 7:14:10 AM, Claude wrote:
> Why not fighting both ?
Because the aberration is such a small number it isn't worth fighting on a
mass scale. Because the simple numbers of it all suggest that it cannot nor
will it ever become the norm. Because when spammers do it they lose >90% of
the addresses they can send to. Spamming is all about *volume*, nothing more.
> Some others are "$", "MONEY", "SEX", "erotic", and other french
> and english words or sentences, and do fine bloody job, too.
> Note that if *this* post go thru your shield, you've got a
> weakness in it :)))
No, it means that the filters don't generate false positives. I do not
advocate and rarely ever will advocate filters that are set off by content
because no matter what you think about those words, they can and do come up in
casual conversation, causing false-positives. I mean because of them you
could be filtering a discussion about spam filters. Ironic, isn't it?
> 6. light artillery group (LAG) :
> From time to time, I spam back. But I think this is a bit
> inefficient.
Also illegal in most places, immoral, unethical and 100% wrong.
> 7. psychological operations operational force (PSYOPS OPFOR) :
> Well, ideas like forwarding spams to the root, admin, webmaster
> and something like that may be useful to make them more angry
> against the terrs who use their sovereign country as a base
> camp. All ideas of this kind are welcome.
> Forwarding it to some [EMAIL PROTECTED] make me laugh a
> bit, too.
Unless you know what you're doing (most people don't) all you're doing is
pissing off people who are not at all related with the spam at all. In fact,
this is a common denial of service attack. Someone spams a bunch of people
with indications of the mail coming from somewhere else. All the knee-jerk
ignorant people who think they are doing good complain to who they think is in
charge of where the spam is coming from. End result, that person now has a
few hundred email in his inbox that he has to wade through.
So when someone suggested creating bounces, that is why I said it is a bad
idea and completely ineffective. All it does is create more work for people
who are most likely not involved esp. since the fake bounce goes to the person
in the from: field, not the actual sender. When someone else said that they
forward it to root at all domains that they can find, the above is why I said
it was a bad idea. In most cases most of the domains listed aren't involved.
> My []small, []local, []individual, []young, []weak, []unexperienced,
> []other(s) [You can check all the boxes and add some]... opinion is that
> the EWST is *very* useful. I don't know a lot of people using it.
It is useful. In fact some ISPs do a variation of it. They post fake
addresses in places as spam traps. Anyone sends a message to it, they are
filtered. *shrug*
SL>> No. I have not met such an individual yet.
>>From time to time, I wonder if you're a cold blood joking man, or if
> you really think what you're writing ;-)
What part of "I have not met such an individual yet" is a joke? It isn't.
I have not met a spammer that knew the system better than I do. I doubt that
such a person exists. If they are sending messages that are generated
individually the volume of messages they are sending out is so low that it is
pushing towards being economically unviable to do it. Further, if they were
to get a faster connection it costs more. Finally, if they decided to get a
very large pipe they have to deal with the national ISPs who are willing to
take them to court, and win, to have them stop their crap. See the case of
Stanford Wallace.
At the same time I feel that any time an individual makes a stupid choice
based on what someone else *might* do which creates more work for them instead
of reducing it I am going to vehemently oppose such a action for the general
populace and explain as clearly as I can the reasons why.
Again, in all of this I feel that the burden of proof is at your feet, not
mine. I have explained why certain methods are good and certain methods are
not. That means you have to come up with something more than "Well, I do it
this way." Now you've got to come up with why my assertations of how things
work and why certain methods are more harmful than others are not the case and
do so with something more than "Well, I don't mind doing it."
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
