BorlandTalk.com Forum Index BorlandTalk.com
Borland discussion newsgroups
 
Archives   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Doug McFarlane
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical)
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rhys Sage
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:06 am    Post subject: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote



Is anybody else getting spammed to death by this turkey? Always advertising
computer positions that do not relate in any way to anybody's resumés.


Back to top
Adam Versteegen
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote



Rhys Sage wrote:

Quote:
Is anybody else getting spammed to death by this turkey? Always
advertising
computer positions that do not relate in any way to anybody's resumés.

No.



Back to top
Stephan
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote



make a message rule that forwards his email back to him,
along with all your other spam. <g>


"Rhys Sage" <abuse (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote

Is anybody else getting spammed to death by this turkey?
Always advertising computer positions that do not relate in any way to
anybody's resumés.



Back to top
Bob Swart
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

Hi Stephan,

Quote:
make a message rule that forwards his email back to him,
along with all your other spam.

That might only "validate" your e-mail address, making you receptive to
even more spam...

Groetjes,
Bob Swart (aka Dr.Bob - www.DrBob42.com)

--
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42) Borland Technology Partner
webmaster UK Borland User Group (BUG) & DotNet Developers Group (DDG)

Back to top
Stephan
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

Hi,
I've heard that doing an "auto reply" to incoming mail would cause many
spam engines to drop your address, essentially fooling them into thinking
that they are emailing an invalid address and getting a response from the
mail server.
Of course, I haven't tried this and don't know if it works.

"Bob Swart" <b.swart (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote

Hi Stephan,

Quote:
make a message rule that forwards his email back to him,
along with all your other spam.

That might only "validate" your e-mail address, making you receptive to
even more spam...

Groetjes,
Bob Swart (aka Dr.Bob - www.DrBob42.com)

--
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42) Borland Technology Partner
webmaster UK Borland User Group (BUG) & DotNet Developers Group (DDG)



Back to top
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

"Stephan" <sREMOVETHISlaska (AT) devarTHISTOOinc (DOT) com> writes:

Quote:
make a message rule that forwards his email back to him,
along with all your other spam.

Also, spammers oftentimes "steal" someone else's email id, so this is
almost certainly an innocent bystander. Can you imagine any real
spammer giving out their email address?

I'm sure that this person is getting inundated with bounced messages
that were sent in his name, but he probably is more a victim than any
recipient of the spam.

--
Chris (TeamB);

Back to top
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

"Stephan" <sREMOVETHISlaska (AT) devarTHISTOOinc (DOT) com> writes:

Quote:
Hi,
I've heard that doing an "auto reply" to incoming mail would cause many
spam engines to drop your address, essentially fooling them into thinking
that they are emailing an invalid address and getting a response from the
mail server.
Of course, I haven't tried this and don't know if it works.

An auto reply won't work, it is validation that the email *works*.
You'd have to have the mail server reject the mail to spoof an invalid
address, but the mail server would have to somehow recognize that it's
spam. Besides, most spammers don't have any valid return addresses,
so bouncing spam does nothing to stop the problem, but does use
internet resources.

--
Chris (TeamB);

Back to top
Stephan
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

Couldn't one look at the email internal links to see
if the reply address looks valid?

such as a reply address of [email]myname (AT) mycompany (DOT) com[/email] and
an internal link in the email of www.mycompany.com/sayhi.html




"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" <chris (AT) uzdavinis (DOT) com> wrote

"Stephan" <sREMOVETHISlaska (AT) devarTHISTOOinc (DOT) com> writes:

Quote:
make a message rule that forwards his email back to him,
along with all your other spam.

spammers oftentimes "steal" someone else's email id
Can you imagine any real spammer giving out their email address?

--
Chris (TeamB);



Back to top
Stephan
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

I guess there's no point in trying it then.

"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" <chris (AT) uzdavinis (DOT) com> wrote

"Stephan" <sREMOVETHISlaska (AT) devarTHISTOOinc (DOT) com> writes:

Quote:
Of course, I haven't tried this and don't know if it works.

You'd have to have the mail server reject the mail to spoof an invalid
address
--
Chris (TeamB);



Back to top
Rhys Sage
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

The best I've come up with so far is to send the junk back via SpamCop. The
only realistic method of stopping spam would have to be done on a source by
source basis. If email users were to contribute say a dollar a day then
sufficient funds would build up to enable the permanant retention of a set
of roadworkers who could inadvertantly cut through the spammer's power, gas,
water and phone connections on a daily basis. Personally, I'd be more
inclined to hire a baseball team to teach the spammer some manners - lol.

Rhys


Back to top
Mike Mormando
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote


"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" <chris (AT) uzdavinis (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

An auto reply won't work, it is validation that the email *works*.
You'd have to have the mail server reject the mail to spoof an invalid
address, but the mail server would have to somehow recognize that it's
spam. Besides, most spammers don't have any valid return addresses,
so bouncing spam does nothing to stop the problem, but does use
internet resources.

This is the way MailWasher works and it does a pretty good job.
I'd say that probably 25% of the email addresses I get are rejected as
invalid
when it sends the invalid address message back.
Mike



Back to top
Rhys Sage
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

I get a bit narked by bouncebacks. I get a few fake bouncebacks and
bouncebacks from spam that people send using my email address as the alleged
sender. My Yahoo account was chock full of bouncebacks one day.

Rhys

"Mike Mormando" <mike (AT) nomormandospam (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
This is the way MailWasher works and it does a pretty good job.
I'd say that probably 25% of the email addresses I get are rejected as
invalid
when it sends the invalid address message back.
Mike





Back to top
Alan Bellingham
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 6:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

"Mike Mormando" <mike (AT) nomormandospam (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:
This is the way MailWasher works and it does a pretty good job.
I'd say that probably 25% of the email addresses I get are rejected as
invalid
when it sends the invalid address message back.

Which probably means that almost all of the other 75% are valid
addresses. But given that they're spam, how many of those do you think
are the spammers' addresses? I'd guess, almost none.

In other words, for every 100 spams that reach you, you're sending out
maybe 70 yourself.

Alan Bellingham
--
Team Mongolian Wok
<url:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/> Borland newsgroup descriptions
<url:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/netiquette.html> netiquette

Back to top
Rhys Sage
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:23 am    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

Well, NTL seems to be the source of the spam. I fired off two spam reports
via spamcop - one from one spammed account and one from another. 24 hours
later, he's spamming again from NTL again. I fired off another spamcop
report. Obviously, if this does not work then NTL is either not reading
spamcop reports or is in the spammers' pockets.


Back to top
Graham Reeds
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Doug McFarlane Reply with quote

Quote:
I get a bit narked by bouncebacks. I get a few fake bouncebacks and
bouncebacks from spam that people send using my email address as the
alleged
sender. My Yahoo account was chock full of bouncebacks one day.

Say a spammer faked an address at btinternet.com and sent it to a recipient
at [email]nameREMOVE (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email]. Yahoo would return the mail to btinternet saying
that the address doesn't exist. Since the address at btinternet never
existed, btinternet then would bounce the email back to yahoo.com, ad
infinitum?

Would it?

G.



Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group
SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.