>I have three samples of what looks like the same adult spam. When I first
>received it, it scored 0 points. Training on the first sample now scores
>Bayes_99, but nothing else. Each sample adds itself to DCC, but subsequent
>ones are not hitting DCC at all, until I train on those.
>
>I can add specific rules for it (and did, actually in procmail before SA
>since it's obvious why waste the CPU cycles on SA) but hopefully some
>SA-ninjas can see why this hits nothing. Evidently their bayes-busting text
>is also doing DCC busting.
>
>See http://www.westnet.com/~chris/SA for the samples S[1-3].mbox
>
>Each one starts with:
>
>>Aloha!
>>
>>Just one bottle will change your life!
>>Gain MASSIVE Sexual Chemistry on Demand!
>
>But they seem to change the greeting, Aloha is Hallo! and Hail! in the other
>samples.
>
>
>Quick-n-Dirty procmail rule:
>
>:0B
>* <8000
>* ^Gain MASSIVE Sexual Chemistry on Demand
>probably-spam
>
>
>==========================================================
>Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 967-7816
>WestNet Internet Services of Westchester
>http://www.westnet.com/
>
Send a complaint to NameBay and the hosting will disappear, Send
a copy of the spam and a copy of Whois for each domain to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and "Cc:" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the domain contact's email will quickly
be gone also. Then this fellow will have to start over again. Both these
actions and you (and everybody else) shouldn't hear from him for a few days
or weeks; He's using two companies that respond very well to nicely written
LARTs.
Using SpamCop will also make things tough for the spammer he has
apparently hired to send these mails, jjconcepts.com-M of Xenia Ohio,
who seems to have a /25 block swip'd from Speakeasy with a bunch of
"questionable" domains/hosts in it (and uses a Chicago address for the
netblock contacts). So a complaint/LART to SpeakEasy wouldn't hurt any
either. The netblock was just obtained Feb. 20 - abd a few complaints
should kill it right off.
Why settle for just blocking when you can nuke these guys.
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
