Death to spammers

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address in the "reply-to"
field of a Usenet posting, or in the footer or any part of a message. I have been conducting
controlled experiments: it is so.

Interesting; my reply-to remains clean, but my posting address gets buggered backwards. I'm just
using McAffee spamkiller, which seems extraordinarily good... Since Saturday it's blocked all spam
and I've only had one false positive.

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... all about me at www.nervouscyclist.org 'Now some people say that you
shouldn't tempt fate, and for them I cannot disagree - but I never learned nothing by playing it
safe, I say fate should not tempt me.' - Mary Chapin Carpenter 'I Take My Chances'

"Tim Dunne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address in the
"reply-to" field of a Usenet posting, or in the footer or any part of a message. I have been
conducting controlled experiments: it is so.

Interesting; my reply-to remains clean, but my posting address gets

buggered

Quoted message said:

backwards. I'm just using McAffee spamkiller, which seems extraordinarily good... Since Saturday
it's blocked all spam and I've only had one false positive.

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... all about me at www.nervouscyclist.org 'Now some people say that you
shouldn't tempt fate, and for them I cannot disagree - but I never learned nothing by playing it
safe, I say fate should not tempt me.' - Mary Chapin Carpenter 'I Take My Chances'

Using SpamAssasin here and it seems pretty good at weeding out the cr*p.

Just zis Guy said:

I am by nature a moderate and liberal man. I oppose the death penalty on principle and from
pragmatic concerns (Birminham Six, Guildford Four as they say on the footie results).

I make one small exception. Spammers should be executed. By drowning. In a pit of well-fermented
bovine faces. From bulls with Crohn's disease.

In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address in the "reply-to"
field of a Usenet posting, or in the footer or any part of a message. I have been conducting
controlled experiments: it is so.

I cancelled [email hidden] today (go on spammers, do your worst) because I now get 8 pieces
of penis-enlargement spam a day and it's making me worry about how I look in Lycra!

The advantages of owning a domain name is you can chop and change all you like - you just have to
mail everyone you *want* mail from to tell them each time.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" came unto us, saying in a loud voice: ...
| In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address in the "reply-to"
| field of a Usenet posting, or in the footer or any part of a message. I have been conducting
| controlled experiments: it is so.

Indeed. Swen has tipped up the playing field. But apparently it, and presumably others, ignore
addresses with "spam" or "delete" in them. So a new technique is to have a valid address with
"nospam" in it - known as a zen spam blocker. Worth testing anyway.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.ukOpen ↗

In message <[email hidden]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I make one small exception. Spammers should be executed. By drowning. In a pit of well-fermented
bovine faces. From bulls with Crohn's disease.

Oh, just give 'em here and we'll use them to build a causeway through the Dog Lane puddle. Then we
can have the satisfaction of riding over 'em.

Quick before it rains and fills it up again though.
--
Sue ];(🙂

Just zis Guy said:

In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address in the "reply-to"
field of a Usenet posting, or in the footer or any part of a message. I have been conducting
controlled experiments: it is so.

Well, I've been doing so for twenty years and I don't intend to stop now. The 'From' and 'Reply-to'
address on this mail, which also appears in
my .sig, is real and unmunged and messages to it are read by me. Of course, they're read by
spamassassin first, and less than 5% of them are these days passed on to be read by me, but so
far I've no evidence of any false positives.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

Just zis Guy said:

I am by nature a moderate and liberal man. I oppose the death penalty on principle and from
pragmatic concerns (Birminham Six, Guildford Four as they say on the footie results).

I make one small exception. Spammers should be executed. By drowning. In a pit of well-fermented
bovine faces. From bulls with Crohn's disease.

In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address in the "reply-to"
field of a Usenet posting, or in the footer or any part of a message. I have been conducting
controlled experiments: it is so.

That is all.

I'm double covered. My mail server applies Razor spam filters which kills most of it and Norton
Internet Security 2k4 deals with the rest bar the occassional one that gets through.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address in the
"reply-to" field of a Usenet posting, or in the footer or any part of a message. I have been
conducting controlled experiments: it is so.

Quoted message said:

Well, I've been doing so for twenty years and I don't intend to stop now. The 'From' and
'Reply-to' address on this mail, which also appears in
my .sig, is real and unmunged and messages to it are read by me. Of course, they're read by
spamassassin first, and less than 5% of them are these days passed on to be read by me, but so
far I've no evidence of any false positives.

Not the point, though - the point is that it's no longer safe to do so, although the standard advice
for some time has been that the reply-to address should be safe. It isn't, not any more. I wonder
whether this is due to them scanning Google rather than newsfeeds, but probably not.

Anyway, I tested and proved the point. Of course we can run SpamAssassin and other tools to filter
the excrement - if I didn't do that email would be useless to me, since I watched my server filter
out over 300 "Microsoft Security Patch" exploit attempts in four hours yesterday.

I think the spammers intend to make internet email useless so people revert to snail and they can
start sending "targeted direct mailings" again.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:54:13 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I make one small exception. Spammers should be executed. By drowning.

Personally I favour dragging them along the road, behind a tandem.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Just zis Guy said:

I think the spammers intend to make internet email useless so people revert to snail and they can
start sending "targeted direct mailings" again.

I got a snail mail David Rhodes chain letter a couple of days ago. The sender had to waste a
stamp instead of hijacking someone's poorly set up machine to send it, so I don't expect them
ever to be most of my mail (even if Norwich Union do seem to think that if they send me enough
car insurance adverts, I'll forget how badly they screwed up before and consider using them again
- they're wrong).

I'm using a real addres, but chiark has fairly aggressive anti-spam measures
chiark.greenend.org.uksauceOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I am by nature a moderate and liberal man. I oppose the death penalty on principle and from
pragmatic concerns (Birminham Six, Guildford Four as they say on the footie results).

I make one small exception. Spammers should be executed. By drowning. In a pit of well-fermented
bovine faces. From bulls with Crohn's disease.

Why? It's only the internet. It's not real, or important. Plenty of real issues to get worked up
about out there, the internet is just a hole in the sand for people to stick their heads into.

"Patrick Herring" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Indeed. Swen has tipped up the playing field. But apparently it, and presumably others, ignore
addresses with "spam" or "delete" in them. So a new technique is to have a valid address with
"nospam" in it - known as a zen spam blocker. Worth testing anyway.

Well it is worth a try, so here goes. My other account was hitting its 7.0 meg limit in a few hours.

Yahoo seemed to spot most of the Swen 142k or154k messages and put them in a bulk folder, but it
still took up space. Does anyone know how to get Yahoo to just bounce them?

Quoted message said:

Why? It's only the internet. It's not real, or important. Plenty of real issues to get worked up
about out there, the internet is just a hole in the sand for people to stick their heads into.

It is important... We could lose email as a communications medium. That is real economic damage.

I favour Mel Smith's wish washy liberal approach...

Richard Webb

"Rory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why? It's only the internet. It's not real, or important. Plenty of real issues to get worked up
about out there, the internet is just a hole in the sand for people to stick their heads into.

Errr.

e-mail is one of the most important communication methods available today.

The internet is a vital source of information for many people.

Saying either are just fluff that we could do without is about as sensible as saying we could do
without telephones as much of the traffic is 14 year olds chatting about the latest boyfriend or
Eastenders episode.

On that basis -- let's stop all communication and return to the cave.

T

(Rory) said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I am by nature a moderate and liberal man. I oppose the death penalty on principle and from
pragmatic concerns (Birminham Six, Guildford Four as they say on the footie results).

I make one small exception. Spammers should be executed. By drowning. In a pit of well-fermented
bovine faces. From bulls with Crohn's disease.

Why? It's only the internet. It's not real, or important. Plenty of

Because it is the Internet, and it is real and it is important. I can't earn my living if the
network does not reliably deliver my mail to my colleagues and clients, and their mail to me.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14? -- user 'Tackhead', in /.
discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02

Frank X said:

"Patrick Herring" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Indeed. Swen has tipped up the playing field. But apparently it, and presumably others, ignore
addresses with "spam" or "delete" in them. So a new technique is to have a valid address with
"nospam" in it - known as a zen spam blocker. Worth testing anyway.

Well it is worth a try, so here goes. My other account was hitting its 7.0 meg limit in a
few hours.

Yahoo seemed to spot most of the Swen 142k or154k messages and put them in a bulk folder, but it
still took up space. Does anyone know how to get Yahoo to just bounce them?

Yahoo seem to have automatically placed a couple of filters into folks mailboxes but seeing as the
filters send the stuff to the trash bin when it *still* counts against your allowance, they're about
as much use as a chocolate teapot. You can go to mail options and remove the filters if you want.
Then you can use pop access to delete them with a program like POP3 Scan mailbox.

You can put the senders in to the "Blocked senders" list but they change so often even that is a bit
of a waste of time. Simplist answer I think is to abandon your present address and create a new one
*making sure you munge your address*.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

I cancelled [email hidden] today (go on spammers, do your worst) because I now get 8
pieces of penis-enlargement spam a day and it's making me worry about how I look in Lycra!

Don't you think such spam makes *me* worry about how I look in Lycra? I seem to get the
same offers...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

[email hidden] (RJ Webb)typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why? It's only the internet. It's not real, or important. Plenty of real issues to get worked up
about out there, the internet is just a hole in the sand for people to stick their heads into.

Quoted message said:

It is important... We could lose email as a communications medium. That is real economic damage.

Quoted message said:

I favour Mel Smith's wish washy liberal approach...

<Pam Stephenson>

I know these people. I've lived with them and seen the deprivation in which they live. I say yes...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
: "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> writes:

:> In case you were in any doubt, it is no longer safe to use an un-munged address

: Well, I've been doing so for twenty years and I don't intend to stop now.

I don't intend to stop either, though since this is my work account I don't care that much if it
gets lots of spam. I have good spam filters, lots of quota, lots of bandwidth and anyway I get >200
mailing list messages a day so the 30-40 spams a day I get aren't the end of the world.

Good mail software is a good thing.

That said, my clune.org mail address is obscufated on my web page since it's important to me that
that address remains low traffic so that I can actualyl use the webmail interface..

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook