hi,
i just noticed something:
until my first post to pd-list today with my new mail @mamalala.net, i only got spam attempts to send to @mamalala.de ....
but an hour after my post, i start to get spam attempts to @mamalala.net !
so, in case that the list archive is misused to grab mail addresses, would it be possible to completely supress the "at some.domain"? probably the spammers know hot to make that into a real address...
another chance that i see is that someone on the list has an infected machine where the addresses might be harvested from (besides using it as spam zombie). probably the owner doesnt even know ...
in any case, there is clearly a connection between this list and getting spam to an address of list poster .... i can see that in my qmail logs ...
greets,
chris
Hallo, Christian Klippel hat gesagt: // Christian Klippel wrote:
i just noticed something:
until my first post to pd-list today with my new mail @mamalala.net, i only got spam attempts to send to @mamalala.de ....
but an hour after my post, i start to get spam attempts to @mamalala.net !
so, in case that the list archive is misused to grab mail addresses, would it be possible to completely supress the "at some.domain"? probably the spammers know hot to make that into a real address...
pd-list is also archived on gmane.org. Quoting http://gmane.org/faq.php
Q: I figured out how to crack the address obfuscation in the web interface! You just replace "<at>" with "@"! You guys are obviously not 3l33+!
A: Er, yes. However, current accepted wisdom in the anti-spam community is that spam harvesting bots do not do even trivial unobfuscation, so nothing more than this trivial scheme is necessary. If that changes, the obfuscation scheme will change, too.
I'm not sure how valid this is.
another chance that i see is that someone on the list has an infected machine where the addresses might be harvested from (besides using it as spam zombie). probably the owner doesnt even know ...
Or maybe the owner *does* know and in fact only subscribed to the list to harvest addresses? How to fight that?
I've given up trying to hide my email address from websites. In the long run it just doesn't seem to work.
Ciao
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 10:37:44AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Christian Klippel hat gesagt: // Christian Klippel wrote:
but an hour after my post, i start to get spam attempts to @mamalala.net !
I've given up trying to hide my email address from websites. In the long run it just doesn't seem to work.
I can recommend 'spamprobe', which is a bayesian filtering system that you can install easily via procmail. I used to get 100 spams a day or more, and now I get roughly 5 to 10 with that number going down slowly. Apt-get installable.
Best,
Chris.
------------------- chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
hi,
Am Sonntag, 14. Januar 2007 03:05 schrieb Chris McCormick:
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 10:37:44AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Christian Klippel hat gesagt: // Christian Klippel wrote:
but an hour after my post, i start to get spam attempts to @mamalala.net !
I've given up trying to hide my email address from websites. In the long run it just doesn't seem to work.
I can recommend 'spamprobe', which is a bayesian filtering system that you can install easily via procmail. I used to get 100 spams a day or more, and now I get roughly 5 to 10 with that number going down slowly. Apt-get installable.
well, my goal is to not accept any incomming spam at all, before the DATA part starts. so far i'm down to the same number like you, but without any filtering of received mails. qmail + spamcontrol is pretty nice for that.
i see a (big) problem with post-filtering incomming mail: to the spammer it is another successfull delivery of spam, so he will continue with that. but if the mail is recjected during the smtp session already, they get back an reject error.
if all people (especially sysadmins of bigger network providers) would do that, i'm sure that we would have a much smaller spam problem than we have now. again, every accepted mail is a success for the spammer, regardless of someone filtering it afterwards. the mail just shouldnt be accepted in the first place.
with the envelope checking that spamcontrol implements, you can get rid of a lot of spams already _before_ accepting the mail (just look hoe spambots construct a mail, there are quite some thing by which you can identify a spam mail)
the rest one could do (like me) by just blocking spamming networks. kornet for example is massively involved in spamming, so just block them completely.
a big problem is that providers just dont care about the problem at all, despite them praying to the public that they take spam fighting serious. they just dont. its all just empty blah-blah phrases.
now, think a bit further: if most systems would block spams that way, even by blocking complete networks, providers would get immense pressure from their customers because of the decreased ability to send legitimate mails from their networks due to the blocks. and when customers make pressure, it means loss of $$ for the providers, the only thing that could make them move.
or do you think that providers dont get spam's as well? it would be an easy task for them to analyze the spams with a script, and kick the asses of their customers who are identified to have spamming machines. this would also make the users more aware about the problem of hacked machines used as spambots.
but as long as there is no pressure (read: potential loss of $$$), they will just not care at all. none of them!
Best,
Chris.
greets,
chris
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-ot
On Jan 13, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Christian Klippel wrote:
hi,
Am Sonntag, 14. Januar 2007 03:05 schrieb Chris McCormick:
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 10:37:44AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Christian Klippel hat gesagt: // Christian Klippel wrote:
but an hour after my post, i start to get spam attempts to @mamalala.net !
I've given up trying to hide my email address from websites. In the long run it just doesn't seem to work.
I can recommend 'spamprobe', which is a bayesian filtering system that you can install easily via procmail. I used to get 100 spams a day or more, and now I get roughly 5 to 10 with that number going down slowly. Apt-get installable.
well, my goal is to not accept any incomming spam at all, before the DATA part starts. so far i'm down to the same number like you, but without any filtering of received mails. qmail + spamcontrol is pretty nice for that.
i see a (big) problem with post-filtering incomming mail: to the spammer it is another successfull delivery of spam, so he will continue with that. but if the mail is recjected during the smtp session already, they get back an reject error.
if all people (especially sysadmins of bigger network providers) would do that, i'm sure that we would have a much smaller spam problem than we have now. again, every accepted mail is a success for the spammer, regardless of someone filtering it afterwards. the mail just shouldnt be accepted in the first place.
with the envelope checking that spamcontrol implements, you can get rid of a lot of spams already _before_ accepting the mail (just look hoe spambots construct a mail, there are quite some thing by which you can identify a spam mail)
the rest one could do (like me) by just blocking spamming networks. kornet for example is massively involved in spamming, so just block them completely.
a big problem is that providers just dont care about the problem at all, despite them praying to the public that they take spam fighting serious. they just dont. its all just empty blah-blah phrases.
now, think a bit further: if most systems would block spams that way, even by blocking complete networks, providers would get immense pressure from their customers because of the decreased ability to send legitimate mails from their networks due to the blocks. and when customers make pressure, it means loss of $$ for the providers, the only thing that could make them move.
or do you think that providers dont get spam's as well? it would be an easy task for them to analyze the spams with a script, and kick the asses of their customers who are identified to have spamming machines. this would also make the users more aware about the problem of hacked machines used as spambots.
but as long as there is no pressure (read: potential loss of $$$), they will just not care at all. none of them!
The real problem with spam is social not technical. The spambot/anti- spam competition is just an arms race, they'll constantly find new ways to trump each other with no end in sight. The bayesian method seems to be the most effective.
Really, to stop spam, people need to be educated to believe if something seems to good to be true, it is. Spam continues to be sent because people follow the links and buy stuff from spammers. Spam could be reduced if people were prosecuted for violating the various non-spam related laws like fraud, selling prescription drugs, etc. But the cops are generally underfunded and not well educated on the related computer issues.
.hc
Best,
Chris.
greets,
chris
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-ot
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-ot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams