On 4/9/03 7:02 AM, "Bill Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:55:34 +0800 >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kelly=20Duffy?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Spam Legalities >> >> Hi all, >> >> This is slightly off topic however I remember a while >> back where a spammer from a "Biomedic Therapies" >> business harvested the groups email addresses. I also >> remember a few people on the list were researching >> spam and working towards finding ways to prevent it >> and all that. I c > > > SNIP > >> ather addresses and what can be >> done, legal issues that the company could face and >> things like that. Its something I'd like to do >> something about. >> >> Thanks for bothering with my rant. >> Kelly >> >> >> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 16:24:32 +0800 >> From: Mark Secker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: Spam Legalities >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This is slightly off topic however I remember a while >>> back where a spammer from a "Biomedic Therapies" >> >> >> OK... if these are the same as we've been receiving then they are >> probably been sent via a worm similar to so-big. >> >> the addresses in the from field are not the people sending them just >> people you have a degree or two of separation from - so there's no >> point sending the e-mail back to them because it's not only not them >> that sending it but it's not even there machine that's infected with >> the e-mail worm. >> >> >> NEVER -EVER click on the unsubscribe or opt out -you will end up >> with more spam because this is 99% of the time used to ensure that >> the hashed or guessed address (yours) is real and there for it's like >> the computer says "hey we have a live one" and this address will be >> flagged for more spam. >> >> They had on one of the ABC national shows an interview with some spam >> research people who set up a mail server with some dummy accounts >> that were never used (never sent mail never received mail) and with >> in days these mailboxes were been flood with spam, when they >> contacted the spammer (a known spammer who sends about 80 _million_ >> spam emails a day) he swore scouts honor that each and every single >> one of the account's users had signed up or "opted in" to receive >> these messages. When the researchers used the dummy accounts to >> select the "opt out" option they simply ended up with a massive >> increase in spam rather than a decrease. >> > > I use Spamfire (Matterform Media), and it collects up all the > usual rubbish for me to see (if I want to) and I then have three > options, delete without reference, find the web bugs and send them a > sanitised response every few seconds for as long as I have IE running > or just bounce. In this respect Mark is not quite correct, the two > degree sep messages don't get bounced but about 60 -70% actually do. > But in the end I suspect all I am getting is a good feeling. > Indeed, there is a menu item "Revenge". > > Now my own question is that with the huge volume of "Re Your Details" > etc traffic, is there not something common to all those messages > that ISPs could detect and kill before they get through? Does a .PIF > file have any useful purpose? > > > > Bill I don't understand ! Can't you do all this with your email application? Why purchase more software? -- Regards, Stephen Chape
