 | |
OT : sharp increase in email spam
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: OT : sharp increase in email spam -
04-16-2007
, 10:05 AM
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 at 06:22 GMT, ric zito wrote: client, but the sudden increase in wasted bandwidth is alarming. Europeans worrying about wasted bandwidth!? LOL  )Why LOL ? |
Quote:
|
Anyone else seeing this? Not me, but I guess depends on what kind email traffic you are dealing with, if your mail server has server side filtering (but may piss you off at some times, it can go on steroids); If you have buddies like Frank, who drinks cats piss and lets his news reader quote your email id in full, and your id does not have a spam-trap, and you communicate with folks in places which are open to the internet, thats game over... And you think that bots are only looking at reply posts ? Really ? |
Would you not harvest the headers of all posts if you were to create
such bot ? Of course you would and it's piss easy to guestimate
attempted masks such as 'mymail at myserver dot com', because for one,
that would be the first thing even a script kiddie would check for and
for the other any guestimated address can only bounce to your
non-existing fake address so why would you give a shit if your bot
happened to send to false address.
Ain't rocket surgery.
--
Regards, Frank
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ain't rocket surgery. |
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
a_Frank wrote: Ain't rocket surgery. When did "rocket science" become "rocket surgery"? |
--
John Briggs
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Paul-B <paul (AT) rasf1 (DOT) net> wrote: ric zito wrote: Out of nowhere, my spam just doubled :-( From around 100-120 a day to suddenly 262 yesterday and 248 today. It's not much of an issue in that they're all filtered out by my email client, but the sudden increase in wasted bandwidth is alarming. Anyone else seeing this? Yep. Doesn't particularly bother me because my filter works well. Where is most of yours directed, more than 95% of mine is to one or more of the .com/.co.uk/.biz addresses I have? I only have two addresses : the one below and a Yahoo one. I get about 50 spam a day at Yahoo too. The non-webmail spam is directed to the address in my sig. I'm wondering : do you think the spambots that trawl these places can reconstitute an address from my sig? Time for a new sig, perhaps? |
to its email address. The only question is whether the programmer has
anticipated that someone might have encoded their address in the way you
did - not in the exact way, but using a similar approach. Since I think
your approach is relatively simple (and common), I suspect that they
would have hacked it. You could try and make it more complex, but the
reality is that there are only a certain number of ways that you could
recode it and still have it interpretable by other readers, and it would
be easy for a programmer to then handle these approaches.
If you really wanted your email to be safe, you should use some form of
riddle unlike anything that anyone else uses. Eg, Take the first 3
letters from "Richard", then add the usual squiggly email sign, follow
it by pixelligence, then a full stop, then the most common suffix for
webaddresses.
Alternatively, using a picture/image could also work - not sure how good
the character recognition software is at present. Of course, I at least
have never seen the need to put my email on a newsgroup.
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
Alternatively, using a picture/image could also work - not sure how good the character recognition software is at present. Of course, I at least have never seen the need to put my email on a newsgroup. |
I've been emailed by people two or three times either because they
pressed the wrong button or to raise something off the group or even
once to ask for advice on race car setup (!).
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
I'm wondering : do you think the spambots that trawl these places can reconstitute an address from my sig? Time for a new sig, perhaps? |
"dictionary attack" spam run, in which case normal service of the spamming
kind should be resumed shortly :-/
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Mark wrote: Alternatively, using a picture/image could also work - not sure how good the character recognition software is at present. Of course, I at least have never seen the need to put my email on a newsgroup. NO BINARIES! |
binaries in a newsgroup. I was referring to the other situation where
people have their email publicly available and want to hide it from bots
- namely on webpages.
Quote:
|
I've been emailed by people two or three times either because they pressed the wrong button or to raise something off the group or even once to ask for advice on race car setup (!). |
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
a_Frank wrote: Ain't rocket surgery. When did "rocket science" become "rocket surgery"? Ha everyone knows its Rocket Salad! |
Peter
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:15:17 +0000 (UTC), Anand Nene anandnNOSPAM (AT) gmx (DOT) net> wrote: On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 at 06:22 GMT, ric zito wrote: client, but the sudden increase in wasted bandwidth is alarming. Europeans worrying about wasted bandwidth!? LOL )Why LOL ? |
Quote:
|
Anyone else seeing this? Not me, but I guess depends on what kind email traffic you are dealing with, if your mail server has server side filtering (but may piss you off at some times, it can go on steroids); If you have buddies like Frank, who drinks cats piss and lets his news reader quote your email id in full, and your id does not have a spam-trap, and you communicate with folks in places which are open to the internet, thats game over... And you think that bots are only looking at reply posts ? Really ? I thought you were a programmer of sorts, but whatever.. Would you not harvest the headers of all posts if you were to create such bot ? Of course you would and it's piss easy to guestimate attempted masks such as 'mymail at myserver dot com', because for one, that would be the first thing even a script kiddie would check for and for the other any guestimated address can only bounce to your non-existing fake address so why would you give a shit if your bot happened to send to false address. Ain't rocket surgery. |
to help you :-)
--
I dont know whether to laugh or cry it is just complete lunacy. If the
[Michelin cars] slow down through [Turn 13], how slow is slow And what
about the other cars coming steaming through there at full throttle on
the Bridgestone tyres
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
And you think that bots are only looking at reply posts ? Really ? I thought you were a programmer of sorts, but whatever.. Would you not harvest the headers of all posts if you were to create such bot ? Of course you would and it's piss easy to guestimate attempted masks such as 'mymail at myserver dot com', because for one, that would be the first thing even a script kiddie would check for and for the other any guestimated address can only bounce to your non-existing fake address so why would you give a shit if your bot happened to send to false address. Ain't rocket surgery. Your news readers attribution is still broken. Help your buddies to help you :-) Nah, my reader compliantly sends back the exact same information your |
--
Regards, Frank
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.