Professional Web Applications Themes

Mushrooming Spam - Mac Networking

Removed by Administrator...

  1. Moderated Post

    Default Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    James Guest
    Moderated Post

  2. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    Keeper Guest
    Moderated Post

  3. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    Gray Guest
    Moderated Post

  4. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    Tom Guest
    Moderated Post

  5. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    Jeffrey Guest
    Moderated Post

  6. #6

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    I thought this thread was about American gourmet cooking . . . but

    [Gray Shockley:] 

    But cross-posting has perfectly valid uses. If cross-posting were
    disallowed, it wouldn't slow down spammers at all (they would just
    spin off individual postings to all groups), but it would make it
    no longer possible to cross post, say, between a freebsd group and
    an os/x group (as I have done). I have even participated in moderately
    long-lasting, completely on-topic threads that were cross-posted to
    several groups (in the {soc,alt}.religion.* hierarchy). So, please
    don't bad-mouth cross posting; in and of itself, there's nothing
    wrong with it, in spite of the bad rap it gets.
     

    Yeah, this is getting closer. You could have Inbox/Junk/Accepted
    folders, where certain message classes are flagged as "accepted"
    and receive special status. You would have an "Accept" button &
    rulesets that worked sort of like the current "Junk" button in
    reverse.

    Greg Shenaut
    Greg Guest

  7. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    Jerry Guest
    Moderated Post

  8. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    Devi Guest
    Moderated Post

  9. #9

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    In article <server.ntli.net>,
    Devi Jankowicz <com> wrote:
     

    Click on the oval button (the lozenge) in the upper right corner of the
    message you are composing; you will then see a number of message
    headers. one of them is the Reply-to header.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.
    Michelle Guest

  10. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Removed by Administrator
    Davoud Guest
    Moderated Post

  11. #11

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Gray Shockley <org> wrote:
     

    But this is a bad idea. So much spam comes with forged addresses that it
    would just mean innocent people getting badly troubled.
    --
    Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
    mail to the From address is never read
    Daniel Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Jerry Kindall <invalid> wrote:
     

    I must admit to being surprised that spammers haven't got round to
    harvesting Reply-To addresses.
    --
    Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
    mail to the From address is never read
    Daniel Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    In article <west.cox.net>, Michelle
    Steiner <org> wrote:
     
    >
    > Click on the oval button (the lozenge) in the upper right corner of the
    > message you are composing; you will then see a number of message
    > headers. one of them is the Reply-to header.[/ref]

    You can also change it permanently (for all messages) somewhere in the
    preferences by adding a new header.

    --
    Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

    Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
    This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
    Jerry Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    In article <1gdxee8.1rb1poa1k2s31sN%com>, Daniel Cohen
    <com> wrote:
     
    >
    > I must admit to being surprised that spammers haven't got round to
    > harvesting Reply-To addresses.[/ref]

    I believe that on nearly all news servers, this would require fetching
    each article rather than just the headers. Reply-To isn't one of the
    headers newsreaders need to display a message list, so it's typically
    not part of the response to the XOVER command, which is the fastest way
    to get the headers for a group of messages. The news server keeps a
    database of the headers needed for the XOVER command so it can return
    them quickly rather than having to read each message to respond.

    I got several thousand copies of the swen worm on my Reply-To address
    but very little spam, and what I do get is fairly easily filtered by
    making sure it has my e-mail address on the To line and includes a
    valid message ID. (To block swen, there's also a size restriction.)

    --
    Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

    Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
    This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
    Jerry Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    In article <170520040827375971%invalid>,
    Jerry Kindall <invalid> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > I must admit to being surprised that spammers haven't got round to
    > > harvesting Reply-To addresses.[/ref]
    >
    > I believe that on nearly all news servers, this would require fetching
    > each article rather than just the headers. Reply-To isn't one of the
    > headers newsreaders need to display a message list, so it's typically
    > not part of the response to the XOVER command, which is the fastest way
    > to get the headers for a group of messages. The news server keeps a
    > database of the headers needed for the XOVER command so it can return
    > them quickly rather than having to read each message to respond.[/ref]

    Address harvesters have plenty of time, why wouldn't they download the
    full headers?

    --
    Barry Margolin, mit.edu
    Arlington, MA
    *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
    Barry Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:20:26 +0100, Davoud wrote
    (in article <170520040820264915%net>):
     
    [snip]

     

    [snip]
     

    Interesting; with having your own domain(s), how do you change your email to
    avoid spam? If my domain is "xyz123.co.uk" and I use 'co.uk' how
    can I alter this to avoid spam? I think I am missing something - possibly a
    few brain cells.

    --
    Peter

    Remove MEAT I'm a vegetarian

    plalp MEAT at freeuk dot com

    PeterG Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Jerry Kindall wrote:
     

    Here are two valid message IDs:

    prodigy.net
    160520042246344147%invalid

    Do you read an X-Spam header that contains INVALID_MSGID,
    or do you check for a full domain name in the Message-ID header?
    (even though it may be difficult to check for an invalid domain
    name)
    George Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    Davoud: [/ref]

    PeterG: 

    Suppose my domain is "abcxyz.com." An e-mail sent to
    <com> will reach me. That's the way my web
    hosting service, hostway.com, works. It's called unlimited e-mail
    aliases. Now suppose that my regular e-mail address,
    <com> is compromised. I simply tell my
    correspondents (via my web site) to stop using that address and to send
    mail to my new address, <com>. Then I remove
    "thickasabrick" from my e-mail filters and e-mail to that address moves
    down to the last filter on the list, which says "trash this message,
    full stop." For infrequent-but-valid correspondents who may not be
    aware that the old address is not working, I simply add a filter based
    on their e-mail address anywhere above the last filter on the list, and
    that new filter says to move mail from <com> (for
    example) to the mailbox of my choice, even if it is addressed to the
    abandoned address, <com>. Eventually I'll get a
    message from myfriendjoe and when I reply I'll tell him about the new
    address.

    I hope that this explanation is at least as <com>!

    Davoud

    --
    usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
    Davoud Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:16:32 -0500, Daniel Cohen wrote
    (in article <1gdxea1.192ze8s1rts4cgN%com>):
     
    >
    > But this is a bad idea. So much spam comes with forged addresses that it
    > would just mean innocent people getting badly troubled.
    >[/ref]

    I wasn't clear at all.

    The anti-spam "revenge" would be triggered and follow the path
    back on which the spam came in.

    And, remember, I said my ideas wouldn't prolly work (grin).

    They were, however, "clear" and "simple".


    Gray Shockley
    -------------------------------------------
    For every complex problem there is an answer
    that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken



    Gray Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Mushrooming Spam

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:58:12 -0500, Davoud wrote
    (in article <170520041158128616%net>):
     


    Since most domain hosts allow multiple e-mail addresses, it's
    also practicable to use different addresses for different
    purposes.

    Use for one family (om), use one for friends
    (com, use one for UseNet (com), another
    for web site (web-sam23p.here.com), use another for business
    (com) and so on.

    The "public one's", especially UseNet and WedSite, can be changed
    without any effect at all. Anyone who uses those addresses and
    which the webmaster/usenet user wants to keep corresponding with
    can be given one of the more "permanent" addresses.

    More "clear"? [grin]


    Gray Shockley
    -------------------------------------------
    For every complex problem there is an answer
    that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken



    Gray Guest

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ^^^ SPAM
    By in forum ASP.NET Building Controls
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 15th, 02:44 PM
  2. Lot's of spam!
    By intrader in forum ASP.NET Building Controls
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 15th, 03:26 AM
  3. OT: SPAM
    By ccnk in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: October 13th, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139