I received a notification from Facebook that I had new notices. Since I don't
visit
often this is possible, but I was looking at the headers, trying to find some
overt
indication that this was spam, when I noticed:
X-Mailer: ZuckMail [version 1.00]
Isn't that taking ego a bit too far?
===
On 25/12/2010 18:27, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote:
> I received a notification from Facebook that I had new notices. Since I
> don't visit
> often this is possible, but I was looking at the headers, trying to find some
> overt
> indication that this was spam, when I notic
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:27:42AM -0800, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon &
Hannah wrote:
> I received a notification from Facebook that I had new notices. Since I
> don't visit
> often this is possible, but I was looking at the headers, trying to find some
> overt
> indication that this
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Not surprising; spammer filth like Zuckerberg often display enormous egos.
Mate -- don't be shy!
Why hold back like that?
Tell us what you really think...
Regards,
Nick FitzGerald
___
Fun and Misc security discussion for O
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 07:27:54 EST, Rich Kulawiec said:
> Not surprising; spammer filth like Zuckerberg often display enormous egos.
OK Rich, I'll bite. Now that you've blown "spammer filth" for Zuckerberg, what
pejorative term are you going to use for the botnet herders, the fake
penis-enlarging
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 06:23:32PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> OK Rich, I'll bite. Now that you've blown "spammer filth" for Zuckerberg,
> what
> pejorative term are you going to use for the botnet herders, the fake
> penis-enlarging pill sellers, the whole 419 scene, the dirty-as-sin
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 06:34:08 EST, Rich Kulawiec said:
> Slightly more seriously: there is no substantive difference between any
> of these other than their tactics.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Somehow, I think when you
conflate Facebook's sending overenthusiastic invite reminde
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 07:15:23AM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 06:34:08 EST, Rich Kulawiec said:
>
> > Slightly more seriously: there is no substantive difference between any
> > of these other than their tactics.
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.
Jealous?
On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote:
> X-Mailer: ZuckMail [version 1.00]
>
> Isn't that taking ego a bit too far?
___
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/m
From: Joel Esler
Date sent: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:47:07 -0500
> Jealous?
True ...
== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rsl...@vcn.bc.ca sl...@victoria.tc.ca rsl...@computercrime.org
Ignorance is never out of style. It was in f
> And I think that a plausible argument can be made that what Facebook
> et.al. are doing is worse -- in the long run, not in the
> obvious/immediate sense.
I think I agree.
It accustoms people to think that spamming is OK, when you're...I don't
know, popular? rich? big? enough.
/~\ The ASCII
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:54:24 EST, der Mouse said:
> > And I think that a plausible argument can be made that what Facebook
> > et.al. are doing is worse -- in the long run, not in the
> > obvious/immediate sense.
>
> I think I agree.
>
> It accustoms people to think that spamming is OK, when you'
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
: On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 06:34:08 EST, Rich Kulawiec said:
:
: > Slightly more seriously: there is no substantive difference between any
: > of these other than their tactics.
:
: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Somehow, I think wh
r...@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
> And I think that a plausible argument can be made that what
> Facebook et.al. are doing is worse -- in the long run, not in the
> obvious/immediate sense.
if you limit it to "in the long run" i'm inclined to agree. noting that
with half a billion users, fa
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:16:38PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> Letting your dog crap on your neighbor's lawn is not OK.
>
> Dumping your nuclear power plant's waste on your neighbor's lawn
> is also not OK.
>
> But they're certainly *not* the same amount of "not OK" (unless maybe your
* security curmudgeon:
> I have been using this e-mail address for around 10 years, and I cannot
> recall getting a single spam e-mail advertising kiddie-porn sites in that
> time.
There has been a redirector-based spam campaign for a Russian-language
site which appeared to host child abuse ima
* grandpa of Ryan Rob:
> X-Mailer: ZuckMail [version 1.00]
>
> Isn't that taking ego a bit too far?
The "z" could be voiceless.
--
Florian Weimer
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe f
> i don't know how to be in the business facebook is in without an
> error rate which when multiplied by their transaction volume and
> customer base size does not result in unwanted bulk e-mail.
Quite so. But there is no need for the mail to be egregious ads.
There is no need for it to be as eas
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:38:54PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> what advice -- useful, pertinent, realistic advice -- can we give to facebook?
As other folks have noted here:
1. Do not create an account until/unless confirmation email is acted on.
Set a sunset date for that (a week?). Track IP ad
19 matches
Mail list logo
