Totalkly OT: How do I stop SPAM

Page 3 of 4  
writes

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

--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 http://www.privacy.net which is laid out in such a way that you should be able to understand.
--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don't use your Name as an email address. It doesn't take a clever algorithm to take a huge list of firstnames and a huge list of surnames...stick them together and append @hotmail, @btinternet, @lycos, @btclick etc etc to construct possible mail addresses.
Saying that, I do use my name as an address...I do get a load of spam...the only one that I don't get spam into is this one !...I guess not many people have the surname 'spam'.
You'll never get spammed if youre email address were snipped-for-privacy@btinernet.com (you're unlikely to get any mail actually :-) ) But that's one good way of reducing the likelihood of a random pick.
Ant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ANt wrote:

I don't think there are many random pickers out there. Its more a question of simply trawling the net and looking for any likely addresses. Himanintervention to replace e.g. -at- with '@' would be too expensive.
I actually foresee this all dropping off in volume, because very very few people ever respond to it. It may be almost free, but it is very unproductive. Malicious use of spam in DOS attacks and as a virus spreading medium remains the greater risk I feel.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can forseee to your heart's content. Very, very few people indeed ever respond. But enough do to make it enormously profitable. You need to do your sums again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Simon Gardner wrote:

I think not. I was reading an article in the economist 2004 review - the sales of web adverts are falling dramatically. No one respods. I certainly don't. Spam is OK not the same thing, but I suspect most people try it once, bexcusae its essentally free, and get so little response that they don't bother again.
We used to do direct TARGETED mail shots - lucky to get 1% response rate. Waste of time mostly. Spanm is untargeted its pure shotgun advertising. .0001%? so you might get one respoinse out of 50,000 shots?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote | We used to do direct TARGETED mail shots - lucky to get 1% | response rate. Waste of time mostly. Spanm is untargeted its | pure shotgun advertising. .0001%? so you might get one respoinse | out of 50,000 shots?
But your targeted postal mailshots would have cost 20-50p or more each. Spam will cost a fraction of a penny each.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Spam costs the recipient, not the sender. That's what makes it so objectionable.
--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:40:59 +0000, "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)"

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.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Faxed spam to domestic fax numbers is of course completely illegal throughout the EU. Best bit of EU law ever passed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Until you find that it's your mailbox they're sending it from
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of plausible (at least for USAnians ;-) forenames and surnames, all automated in the spam-house's software.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:59:07 UTC, snipped-for-privacy@hp.com wrote:

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.
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course if everybody used Exchange, there wouldn't be any of this problem ;-)
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

into this old.net.fart's brain (and I suspect a few others') as subliminally synonymous with "email stuff"...
Ta - Stefek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:53:04 UTC, snipped-for-privacy@hp.com wrote:

Well, this old fart here had his mind first focused on it in the early 1980s, when the powers that be in the UK academic establishment decided to reinvent the wheel with email. Anyone remember the insistence that domain names in email addresses shuld be written the 'other' way? The infamous Grey Book....
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely.
It wasn't just that, though was it? They were also titting around with connection based network protocols and other areas. IIRC there was a whole series of documents called the Coloured Books, and UK academia was trying to get U.S. vendors to implement them. I don't think that anybody ever did, and so the whole thing pretty much died a death.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's right. Yellow book for transport service, green book for terminal protocols, red book for remote job entry, blue book for file transfer. The blue book was the bane of my life...a dreadful thing.
I remember going to a Grey Book committee meeting attended by all major mail implementors at that time. They ALL said they wanted to use the standard domain name ordering, but 'they' (powers that be) had really already decided to reverse it as it was 'easier for implementors'.
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

for Pascal-style identifiers trotting out the instution's entire charter as part of the name -
uk.academic.manchester-john-rylands-university
or some such. Or am I just imagining this?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.