I was wondering if there was any encoded information in the apparently random letters in my spam messages. Would certainly be handy identifying messages when they are 'bounced' by Mail filtering programs (e.g. Mailwasher).
BTW I gave up on Mailwasher. Couldn't get below 6 spams a day. Changed my e-mail address. Now my children can use my computer again.
Colin
And you would know.
What is the point of replying to a spammed email address? You are only increasing the noise - do you really think anyone is going to read it?
If you reply and it gets through to somewhere, then they know that you have an active email addy. Telling them it's unwanted isn't going to stop anyone from resending
What a naff idea
Read the previous in the thread again please. It seems you have the wrong end of the stick.
A little more understanding will result from looking up
Spam costs the recipient, not the sender. That's what makes it so objectionable.
Faxed spam costs the sender, and aside from the consumables of the receiving Fax machine costs nothing for the recipient - and I still find that highly objectionable.
I'd be very happy if the email spammer was charged 1p per spam - I'd gladly open up an email address that they can send to. All monies raised going to charity and all that.
PoP
Replying to the email address given by my news reader will result in your own email address being instantly added to my anti-spam database! If you really want to contact me try changing the prefix in the given email address to my newsgroup posting name.....
"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote | > But your targeted postal mailshots would have cost 20-50p or more | > each. Spam will cost a fraction of a penny each. | Spam costs the recipient, not the sender. That's what makes it so | objectionable.
Yes, and why it's so lucrative for the sender.
Owain
Faxed spam to domestic fax numbers is of course completely illegal throughout the EU. Best bit of EU law ever passed.
In message , PoP writes
Until you find that it's your mailbox they're sending it from
with a Bayesian plugin...
If anyone finds a solution on how to block all SPAM, they'll be richer than Uncle Bill from Microsoft. :-))
I tried mailwasher for a couple of months. The spam stabilized at about 7 to
8 a day. In the end I gave up and changed my e-mail address...Is anyone suspicious about the e-mail address in the titles of spam and the strange character sets in the title and body of spam? Are they used by the spammers when you spoof non-delivery returns?
Colin
True. Stopping *all* of it is difficult, although with SpamAssassin and derivatives of it, which uses Bayesian filtering, database lookups of errant spam messages and other techniques, I find that I am typically getting about a 98% rejection.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
It's generally better not to do returns because this will cause some spam mailers to try other addresses on your domain.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Me too, with Norton AntiSpam.
Suzanne
The names are meaningless junk, created by choosing at random from a list of plausible (at least for USAnians ;-) forenames and surnames, all automated in the spam-house's software.
A result of the venerable RFC822 protocol by which mail is sent and forwarded on the Net is that there need be NO connection AT ALL between any address appearing in the headers you see, and the *actual* delivery address. The "real" delivery address(es) are the ones supplied in the RCPT TO: part of the RFC-822 conversation, and are called the 'envelope' address(es); after the SMTP mailer's been told what address to send the mail on to, it then gets given the 'content' of the email message, which
*includes* all the headers you see. So the "From:", "To:", "Bcc:", "Cc:", "X-Face:", "X-Uncle-Tom-Cobbly-And-All", "X-Spam-Status: 0.2" and all such lines are at the whim of the mail injector. The single header line which is not under the control of the injector is the "Received:" line, which is generated in succession by each receiving SMTP listener in the chain, and by convention placed in reverse order (i.e. the textually-first Received: line is from the last SMTP listener to have handled the message). This line contains data partially recording elements of the SMTP conversation and its context, such as the IP address and/or domain name of the originator of this SMTP conversation; some SMTP listeners will even be so kind as to record in their Received: line what the RCPT TO: address was which caused them to be made to listen, in the "for ..." part of that line; but not all do. They may also do some address rewriting on some of the To:, From:, and similar lines.Ob. d-i-y: this is how to test mail connectivity at a low level, ignoring the kindnesses of Outlook, Eudora, Mozilla, and all other friendly mail clients - you telnet up to port 25 and incant "HELO", "DATA", "MAIL FROM:", and RCPT TO:" in the manner prescribed by the sacred text of RFC-822 and its heirs and assignees... Once you've done it once, you'll never again be under illusions as to the reliability of the information apparently presented in mail headers...
Stefek
Note that 822 has been updated several times, and now superseded by RFC2822. And actually it's sent/forwarded using RFC2821...see below.
I agree. And because of the history it's very difficult to change.
No, that's an RFC2821 conversation - SMTP.
Well, they were never in 822 but I take your point.
And for me, the d-i-y bit is that I've written mail servers and clients (conforming to 2821/2822 etc....at least I hope they do!).
Not meaning to be picky, but it's an area I'm involved in and just wanted to get it right for Google archive's sake.
Of course if everybody used Exchange, there wouldn't be any of this problem ;-)
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
"Chris Hodges" wrote | Mailwasher (win only AFAIK) downloads only the headers and allows | both blacklist server use and filtering. Even if it only picks | up ~90% it does it quickly as it doesn't bother downloading the | body (which is >100kB in many cases.
I find a rule deleting all mail >100kB unread off the server simple and very useful. It's easy enough to turn off on the odd occasion I'm expecting a large attachment.
Owain
[ ... ]
Quite right, and thanks for the correction. It's just that 822 is burnt into this old.net.fart's brain (and I suspect a few others') as subliminally synonymous with "email stuff"...
Ta - Stefek
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.