5:06:16 -0700 (PDT), Binky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - Copy of Message sent to Michael Polak ---
>
> > Michael,
>
> > The volume of SPAM and viruses on the Arachne
> > list has reached over 6MB a day to each subscriber.
>
> > This is a
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 05:06:16 -0700 (PDT), Binky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Copy of Message sent to Michael Polak ---
> Michael,
> The volume of SPAM and viruses on the Arachne
> list has reached over 6MB a day to each subscriber.
> This is a *major* problem
- Copy of Message sent to Michael Polak ---
Michael,
The volume of SPAM and viruses on the Arachne
list has reached over 6MB a day to each subscriber.
This is a *major* problem for many of us on the
list and is surely damaging the reputation of
Arachne Labs among users and ISPs around
I had the following sent to me regarding unsolicited advertising email
aka SPAM...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:01:56 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> Remember, when you receive e-mail from an unknown source and suspect
> it to be spam, avoid clicking on the unsubscribe links, replying to
>
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:01:56 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> Remember, when you receive e-mail from an unknown source and suspect
> it to be spam, avoid clicking on the unsubscribe links, replying to
> the spam, replying to an address in the spam message, or visiting any
> link cont
Hi everyone,
Here is a great piece of advice that I feel needs to be shared.
--- I got this today from the admins of NetZero ---
Remember, when you receive e-mail from an unknown source and suspect
it to be spam, avoid clicking on the unsubscribe links, replying to
the spam, replying to an
own source and suspect
. > it to be spam, avoid clicking on the unsubscribe links, replying to
. > the spam, replying to an address in the spam message, or visiting any
. > link contained within the e-mail. These actions confirm the validity
. > of your e-mail address and may result in more spam.
ez" patches to close this hole after
> all their poor suffering customers started getting hit by all that
> tasty popping spam and screamed to high heaven.
>
> It's trivial to get rid of, just google for
>
> disable "messenger serice"
>
> or some such. You will get mucho hits.
>
> goodday,
> __
> sodjiin
machines/firewalls/network they are on should've been FIRED years ago,
nothing like that should not be running, and certainly not accessible
from the internet. Popup spam may be new thing, but file shares have
been notorious and very well known security hole for years.
t;. I think they got one their
"windoze uptadez" patches to close this hole after all their poor
suffering customers started getting hit by all that tasty popping spam
and screamed to high heaven.
It's trivial to get rid of, just google for
disable "messenger serice"
or some such. You will get mucho hits.
goodday,
__
sodjiin
Dear List:
"DELTREE C:\WINDOWS" is the most useful command for blocking a new
kind of spam.
There is a new kind of spam going around which suddenly raises its
ugly head in the form of pop-up windows which seem to appear out
of nowhwere even if you are running only a DOS program in
Hey Sam,
I sent my sp*m, if you sent me a reply it got caught in my filter[s] :-)
later,
rick
I sent four or five fake spams to Sam Heywood and he got them
all. Maybe the filtering is more complex and consideres subject,
text and source in various weighted combinations.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 08:01:03 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Per my request I received sixteen fake spams at my altern
though it were a spam.
If any of you besides Neil Parks sent to me a fake spam for which you
did not receive a private acknowledgement from me, please let me know
about it by private email. Also you may brag to the list that you
were successful in sending a fake spam to me that was treated by the
at is written there.
> The only way I can figure how they could do that is if they
> named a different web site for each article of spam sent and
> the named web site corresponds to the spam article sent to
> your email address only. Do spammers do things like that?
Why not? All you need is
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> I don't know how it happens either. But I was curious once and
> clicked and got a message saying "thanks for your interest" and
> almost immediately I started getting spam by the bushel. It is almost
> all in HTML only, is sent
t
http://tinyurl.com for one... not saying tinyurl is ever
involved in spam, just that the same type of hash can
be used to encode your e-mail address in a URL.)
There are also e-mails containing extra-info inline
graphics names for those who are viewing in arachne or other
HTML mail read
On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:26:44 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 17:24:09 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
>> And if you should even once respond to a spam (sometimes just going
>> to a suggested website is all it takes) then you will get on a list
>> of "e
On Tue, 27 May 2003 17:24:09 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> And if you should even once respond to a spam (sometimes just going
> to a suggested website is all it takes) then you will get on a list
> of "email responders". Lists of "email responders" are a hot item
>
On Tue, 27 May 2003 17:24:09 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> And if you should even once respond to a spam (sometimes just going
> to a suggested website is all it takes) then you will get on a list
> of "email responders". Lists of "email responders" are a hot item
>
On Wed, 28 May 2003 08:55:09 +1000, Ron Clarke wrote:
> If you shell out from arachne and look at them with a text viewer, you
> will see a (UU)-encoded attachment, often called "big5". I have an idea
> that this is something that Outlook Distress will actually render, but I
> seem to remember t
On Tue, 27 May 2003 07:54:48 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> Sure, I get stuff like this all the time.
Any idea what's causing it? Is it noise in the system or what?
from Greg Mayman, in Adelaide, South Australia
"Queen City of the South" 34:55S 138:36E
-- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy,
Hi Folks,
On Tue, 27 May 2003 16:37:51 +0930, Greg Mayman wrote:
> Is anyone else getting garbage mail like the following? I'm receiving up
> to three a day, none of them with any content to the message.
I have been getting a few of these. They actually have content, but
Arachne doesn't show
of this
> kind at all.
Let us not forget that the Arachne list traffic is archived at a
wesite available to any and all comers. So once your email address
gets harvested it will be passed around by the spammers and
it will be impossible to get removed.
And if you should even once respond to a spam
Dear List,
I got several of the mentioned spam messages but I did not
send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reedbusiness did succesfully intercept the spam.
Regards, Bastiaan
- Forwarded message begin -
From: System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Your message
To:
id h22AnCBH029515
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:49:13 +0100
>
> The originating address is indicated above. The whois
> info on that address shows it to be registered in
> Yugoslavia. If you're running Linux, simply do
> 'whois [EMAIL PROTECT
e running Linux, simply do
'whois [EMAIL PROTECTED]' to find all the
contact info.
(Note: I snipped the quoted spam so it doesn't show up
*once again* in my spam folder. Please do not quote spam
in real e-mail.)
> When doing a Whois query it shows that
>
> the top
Ah,
Now I see more clearly.
So all we have to do to keep those spam ISPs busy is to load up the
a-list with a few thousand false addresses.
Their servers will be so busy receiving bounces that they'll go broke for
lack of legitimate customers.
Is that a way to out-spam the spammers?
Yup. Simple as
:0 :
* ^Return-Path:.*netbsd
$MAILDIR/netbsd-folder
> For spam, I might choose a safe procedure of putting
> spam candidates in a separate file but not /dev/null until I look through them
> all.
You will soon see that some characteristics will flag your
mail as
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 20:28:01 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:06:47 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote:
>> I never heard of "ham" referring to legit email, as opposed to spam. In the
>> realm of meat, I think Spam is a form of ham?
> Spam is a
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:06:47 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I never heard of "ham" referring to legit email, as opposed to spam. In the
> realm of meat, I think Spam is a form of ham?
Spam is an acronymned trademark which stands for "spiced ham".
To learn more
], and
[EMAIL PROTECTED], no advantage in separate files, could search Return-Path:
line for "netbsd" string. For spam, I might choose a safe procedure of putting
spam candidates in a separate file but not /dev/null until I look through them
all. Then I can save legit messages but delete
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:15:27 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would it be more accurate to say that quoting spam would make
>> the entire email "appear" as if it was spam to anti-spam
>> filtering programs that it might encounter? And only then
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> If you quote spam, your entire e-mail is processed as
> >> spam, i.e., it *becomes* spam.
>
> Would it be more accurate to say that quoting spam would make
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:48:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ahh. I learned something new.
> Thanks Steve.
> Bob
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you quote spam, your entire e-mail is processed as
>> spam, i.e., it *becomes* spam.
Ahh. I learned something new.
Thanks Steve.
Bob
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you quote spam, your entire e-mail is processed as
> spam, i.e., it *becomes* spam.
> --
> Steve Ackman
__
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
> SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
> SPAM:
> SPAM: Content analysis details: (12.3 hits, 5 required)
> SPAM: Hit! (0.6 points)
The first (annual?) spam conference took place this month
at MIT in Cambridge, MA. Most of it was about current spam
filtering technology... Bayesian filtering, and training
your spam filter. A Bayesian filter trained on its errors
quickly reaches > 99.8% accuracy. Training needs to
> What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one? Did anybody
> else get one requesting a reliable supplier of a similar product?
> I wonder in which dimension my most beloved enemies were travelling
> when they signed me up for this kind of spam.
> Sam Heywood
I rec
that the US would even bother
>> to sort out minor trouble like spam in these parts.
>
>
>
>
>The US government officially claims to be working on the Nigerian scam
>problem. For the reasons you mentioned I am very doubtful if the
>US government is seriously trying to do a
t; and the Sharia practise of stoning women, not to mention the accusations of
>> heavy terrorist activity) it seems unlikely that the US would even bother
>> to sort out minor trouble like spam in these parts.
>
>
>
>
>The US government officially claims to be working on the Nig
ise
> themselves as mailinglists (thus having this opt-out possibility, which may
> of course always coincidentally be broken).
Spamming is in fact illegal in several states in the US. The fact that
a spammer may offer even a genuine opt-out option does not make his
spams legal. Anyone who se
omplained to you about. You might stop it without even going
>to a lawyer first and paying your money to find out if I were advising
>you correctly. Spammers don't want to be reported and complained about.
>They like to trick the recipients of their messages into believing
>that th
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 01:01:16 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Is there any reason why arachne-list@... should not be disabled?
> (rhetorical question)
Somebody would have to do that on purpose. And nobody's home
there. Nobody is minding the store at Arachne Labs. Otherwise
somebody would ha
I got that same spam from [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and presume everybody
on the Arachne list got it too. Now this arachne-list@... is a spam target.
OK, now let the spammers bombard [EMAIL PROTECTED] , or if that doesn't
work, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note my intentional typos).
Is there any reaso
reported and complained about.
They like to trick the recipients of their messages into believing
that their unsolicited commercial email messages are legal by citing
non-existent laws protecting spammers. The average spam victim will
simply believe the lies and he won't go to the trouble of inv
art of the same code stating that "opt-out" options are
obliged in unsollicited commercial mass mailing, but not demanding their
functionality?
Not being a US citizen I can assure you that that part is a laugh. Maybe be
US is just that much more repressive when it comes to _foreign_ spam
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:13:55 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> BTW, the spams being sent by the former Nigerian general are no laughing
> matter according to the fraud investigation departments of the US Secret
> Service and the FBI. According to them lots of people are actually
> falling for the
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:12:32 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:24:14 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one? Did anybody
>> else get one requesting a reliable supplier of a similar product?
>> I wonder in wh
chargeing them 40,000
(even tho he is a low-life Anorian)
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:24:14 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one? Did anybody
> else get one requesting a reliable supplier of a similar product?
> I wonder in which dimensio
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Bart Buitinga wrote:
> What do you think of the following then (note the ns.arachne in the
> headers; quite puzzling). It came with four copies at the same time; these
> may just be my e-mail aliases but they got suppressed.One was sent to my
> current "official" alias, which
w
Single-Line Downline
System: http://sinisabiz.50megs.com/";>CONTINUE
***To be REMOVED from further
mailings, please click mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Remove";>here.*** We
ALWAYS respect REMOVE requests.
At 11:24 17-12-02 -0500, you wrote:
>What SPAM
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:24:14 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one? Did anybody
> else get one requesting a reliable supplier of a similar product?
> I wonder in which dimension my most beloved enemies were travelling
> when they
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:24:14 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one? Did anybody
> else get one requesting a reliable supplier of a similar product?
> I wonder in which dimension my most beloved enemies were travelling
> when they
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one?
Not I.
>
> If you are a reliable supplier of the below equipment I am going to
> need the following:
>
> 1. A mind warper gener
Arrrghhh! The Ferenghi are now connected to the internet! :-)
Regards Joerg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 17.12.02 17:40:59:
> What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one? Did anybody
> else get one requesting a reliable supplier of a similar product?
> I wonder in which dim
What SPAM is THIS ? Did anybody else here get one? Did anybody
else get one requesting a reliable supplier of a similar product?
I wonder in which dimension my most beloved enemies were travelling
when they signed me up for this kind of spam.
Sam Heywood
forwarded message begins
Skywalker,
I'll tell you what I told Matt.
You use Microsoft Outlook Express, so therefore you have the ability to
avail yourself of numerous -- many free -- spam block software programs
that would allow you to block out anything from the Arachne servers.
Get one, use it
On Sun, 1
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:11:52 +0200, Or Botton wrote:
> I've just received a spam letter.
> Normally i'd just end it by filing the usual Abuse report and trashing the
> thing, but this time I noticed something intresting in the headers:
> Received: from amailsender.
I just want to get off this bloody list.
- Original Message -
From: "Or Botton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Arachne list and Spam
> I've just received a spam letter.
>
> Normally i
I've just received a spam letter.
Normally i'd just end it by filing the usual Abuse report and trashing the thing, but
this time I noticed something intresting in the headers:
Received: from amailsender.com (dsl-65-189-152-17.telocity.com [65.189.152.17])
by ns.arachne.
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:24:04 +, Thomas Tabler wrote:
> Dear List:
> I have recently received spam from someone using MSOE and base/64
> encoded message using early Arachne version. Is this some sort of spam
> and what if anything can I do about it? Just delete it?
Everybo
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:24:04 +, Thomas Tabler wrote:
> Dear List:
> I have recently received spam from someone using MSOE and base/64
> encoded message using early Arachne version. Is this some sort of spam
> and what if anything can I do about it? Just delete it?
As I&#x
Dear List:
I have recently received spam from someone using MSOE and base/64
encoded message using early Arachne version. Is this some sort of spam
and what if anything can I do about it? Just delete it?
yours
Tom
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate
where in Arizona, doesn't matter where. Lately
> you and several others in Arizona have been receiving a ton
> of unwanted commercial mail, for everything from free porn
> magazines, to sweepstakes, to get rich quick schemes. Many
> of these postal messages bear a postmark from Mo
I am not sure just what Bluegrass Net does to stop spam, but the last I was told
is that they blocked mail coming from any server on a list of open relays.
I've had legitimate correspondents, both direct and through lists, with Hotmail
or Yahoo addresses, and I wouldn't want to bar tho
izona have been receiving a ton
of unwanted commercial mail, for everything from free porn
magazines, to sweepstakes, to get rich quick schemes. Many
of these postal messages bear a postmark from Montana. So,
in order to "solve" the spam problem, your local post office
now blocks ALL inco
OK ... 11/24/02-11/25/02 ... 1:00AM/1:00AM PST
24Hr period: Total Messages = 206
Diverted Mail = 93
My Inbox: Good Stuf= 76
SPAM= 37
This is my main email address, had since 1997. Mail is diverted by my
ISP via MailMan [by Endymion] ... had to "whitelist" this list
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:43:41 +0200 (EET), Cristian Burneci wrote:
> Fortunately I get only one or two a week. All of them on discussion lists
> On Arachne list, none.
> There's a good side in not being able to browse through list archive from
> the net. Neither the spiders can :)
> Cristian Burne
02 09:20:04 -0500
> From: Sam Ewalt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: spam
>
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:55:17 -0700, G J Feig wrote:
>
>
> >> Is anybody on the list actually getting that much spam?
>
>
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:55:17 -0700, G J Feig wrote:
>> Is anybody on the list actually getting that much spam?
> I have no axact figures. My ISP just blocks, and dumps the box
> every so many emailsI almost never go look in it. Whenever I
> do, it always has between 10-
is also "no biggie" to simply delete those bothersome pieces of spam. ;-)
> It is easier for one to
> change his email address than it is for me to change into a nice suit.
It also seems to be easier for some people to complain about spam
than it is for them to simply. delete '
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I was looking for someone's personal numbers--something from
> somebody's real experience. Megabytes?
> Is anybody on the list actually getting that much spam?
Sam,
I have no axact figures. My
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:27:54 -0600, Glenn Gilbreath Jr. wrote:
> Hiya Gang!
> I couldn't let this one pass anylonger, hehe...sorry, but blocking entire
> domains or ISPs just because a user receives 1 or 2 "spam" emails
> from some address purported to be owned by t
> No, I was looking for someone's personal numbers--something from
> somebody's real experience. Megabytes?
> Is anybody on the list actually getting that much spam?
At one stage I was getting 4 - 6 MB a day, made up of a mixture of
spam and worms, mostly worms.
That was when I
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:27:12 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:05:23 -0500, Terri FitzSimons wrote:
>>> ...But, holy smokes, are you guys really getting megabytes of spam
>> daily? I'd like to hear a firm figure from someone who knows
>> for sure--no
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:05:23 -0500, Terri FitzSimons wrote:
>> ...But, holy smokes, are you guys really getting megabytes of spam
> daily? I'd like to hear a firm figure from someone who knows
> for sure--not just a wild guess.<
> How about these numbers?
> WORL
an
completely legit users from email service is NOT what I think OK.
And don't forget ... people using @hotmail.com do not SPAM, they usually don't
even know what spam really is. They don't send mail to people they don't know
... so _I_ don't see any reason to ban them. B
.html";>
ZD Net Tech Update, Why Spam could destroy the Internet
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2897473,00.html
C U L8R! <{;-)
>...But, holy smokes, are you guys really getting megabytes of spam
daily? I'd like to hear a firm figure from someone who knows
for sure--not just a wild guess.<
How about these numbers?
WORLDWIDE E-MAIL MESSAGES SENT ANNUALLY
1996 19992002
Hiya Gang!
I couldn't let this one pass anylonger, hehe...sorry, but blocking entire
domains or ISPs just because a user receives 1 or 2 "spam" emails
from some address purported to be owned by that domain/ISP is
akin to denying access to the Internet to an ENTIRE race of humans.
Oh yeah... not to mention the never-ending supply of
Windoze virii. For some reason they skipped me on the 22nd,
but here they come again (yes, definitely megabytes some
days):
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 23 01:40:19 2002
Subject:
Folder: /dev/null 1
I complained to the ISP, and within the next 24 hours I must
have gotten about 6 more of them, mostly sent from other
countries. It does seem that if you complain to ISPs in
certain countries, all it does is serve to get you on more
spam lists.
> But still,
> I stick with the same metho
any domains blocked by my ISP. I have good friends and
> relatives with hotmail, yahoo, msn, aol accounts. Maybe I want to
> get messages from Russia or India or China or who knows where.
> That's the way I want it.
> But if spam gets your knickers in a twist, then blocking the mos
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 06:22:46 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Emerson)
wrote:
> Hi All,
> Stop spam accept no e-mails !!! :)'
> Eric
Now there's the perfect solution.
I wonder why no-one has suggested that before
--
Glenn
http:
want to
get messages from Russia or India or China or who knows where.
That's the way I want it.
But if spam gets your knickers in a twist, then blocking the most
popular free account domains might indeed limit the amount of spam
you get. If that's where it's coming from, I don&
Hi All,
Those of us, who have lived long enough, know
that we already have too many laws. We also know that
any laws created to stop spamming will be twisted by
the authorities and will hinder those who responsibly use
e-mail. Thus, we see "delete & ignore & forget" as the
lesser of the
Hi All,
Stop spam accept no e-mails !!! :)'
Eric
>-- This mail was sent by a user of Arachne - The Ultimate Internet Client
--
__
| Aaryx |__\_ Eric S. Emerson
| E-mail:~_: ! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`~(*)(*)~' `
rom particular ISPs or entire domains is not the answer.
> IMO,
> The answer to spam is.
> Delete 'em, forget 'em.
Even if the spam block is still in place Mithgol knows that he can
easily get around the problem simply by writing to you from a free
email account belonging to
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> I don't see what benefit blocking legitmate yahoo/hotmail users has !!
> it's IMHO plain silly.
> It will not lower the amount of spam you get, but it will frustrate many
users.
Yes, it doesmy ISP
...
I don't know wheather or not the block has been removed.
As you can see.
Blocking eMails from particular ISPs or entire domains is not the answer.
IMO,
The answer to spam is.
Delete 'em, forget 'em.
--
Glenn
http://arachne.cz/
http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/
http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
on't see what benefit blocking legitmate yahoo/hotmail users has !!
> it's IMHO plain silly.
> It will not lower the amount of spam you get, but it will frustrate many
users.
It will lower the amount of spam you get.
Consider this analogy:
When a night club won't let some guys
s use yahoo. If they
SH> want to send an email to me they will send it to me at one of my
SH> email addresses that accepts hotmail and yahoo.
But why ??
I don't see what benefit blocking legitmate yahoo/hotmail users has !!
it's IMHO plain silly.
It will not lower the amount of
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:42:46 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
(a long and well written rant, deleted here)
Well, different things upset us. I think the best way to limit
spam is keep a clean email address and only give your "prime
address" to people you really want to hear from.
How
; from the mailservers of those domains. This helps considerably to
>> reduce spam. The only downside to their taking such an action is that
>> emails from people who use hotmail and yahoo for legitimate purposes
>> are also blocked.
> This is not good strategy in my opin
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:48:15 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Also my Unix shell account at "http://sdf.lonestar.org"; blocks emails
> bearing hotmail and yahoo addresses, even if they are not originating
> from the mailservers of those domains. This helps considerably to
y thing I know of which would be effective at stopping spam
> SH> would be the tracing of the IP number from which the spam originates
> SH> and then blacklisting the domains which are known to harbor spammers.
> Exactly this is what is done.
> Find spam friendly/misconfigured Mailse
ss-mailings.
nobody blacklists email addresses !!
SH> The only thing I know of which would be effective at stopping spam
SH> would be the tracing of the IP number from which the spam originates
SH> and then blacklisting the domains which are known to harbor spammers.
Exactly t
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:42:11 +0100, Bart Buitinga wrote:
> Recently I've been forwarding a lot of spam to an org called Spamcop
> http://www.spamcop.net which is supposed to blacklist senders. You can get
> a free account there, and either forward spam by mail or paste it in a
&
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:18:50 +0200, Or Botton wrote:
> Actually...
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-04.html
> Snippet from the buttom part of the page:
> "If, however, the unsolicited email originates from a Yahoo! International
Mail
> account (i.e. [EMAI
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
