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
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
firstname.lastname@example.org (you're unlikely to get any mail actually
:-) ) But that's one good way of reducing the likelihood of a random
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
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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
Yes, and why it's so lucrative for the sender.
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...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:59:07 UTC, email@example.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.
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:53:04 UTC, firstname.lastname@example.org 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....
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
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
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'.
Oh yes, uk.ac.ic lives on un (unreliable?) memory, along with a fashion
for Pascal-style identifiers trotting out the instution's entire charter
as part of the name -
or some such. Or am I just imagining this?
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.