[PD-ot] pd list used to get addresses to spam to?

[Christian Klippel]

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 at mccormick.cx
> http://mccormick.cx
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-ot mailing list
> PD-ot at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-ot