On 06/09/2014 04:11 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> This is a first-cut, mildly sloppy script that will try to match some
> patterns of interest that I've noticed in my "subscribe" log and that
> might be in yours.
...
>
> Here is what the last 10 lines of its output look like on my system:
>
> Jun
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 17:01:19 -0700 Mark Sapiro
wrote:
> They are spammers attempting to subscribe to your list(s) via POSTs
> to the web subscribe CGI. Presumably if they successfully
> subscribe, they will then spam the list.
>
> If you have Mailman 2.1.16 or later, you can mitigate this by
> se
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 17:01:19 -0700 Mark Sapiro
wrote:
> They are spammers attempting to subscribe to your list(s) via POSTs
> to the web subscribe CGI. Presumably if they successfully
> subscribe, they will then spam the list.
BTW, I don't quite understand this. Why would splatting random
address
rg]
> On Behalf Of Perry E. Metzger
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2014 11:49 AM
> To: Mark Sapiro
> Cc: mailman-users@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Bogus/forged subscription
> attempts: request for comments and possibly data
>
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 17:01:19 -0700 M
Perry E. Metzger writes:
> BTW, I don't quite understand this. Why would splatting random
> addresses at you help them? Why not just pick real addresses they
> control? Successfully subscribing is easy, and generating seemingly
> random addresses won't get them subscribed since the addresses w
At Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:48:38 -0400 "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 17:01:19 -0700 Mark Sapiro
> wrote:
> > They are spammers attempting to subscribe to your list(s) via POSTs
> > to the web subscribe CGI. Presumably if they successfully
> > subscribe, they will then spam the li
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:48:49 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> Perry E. Metzger writes:
>
> > BTW, I don't quite understand this. Why would splatting random
> > addresses at you help them? Why not just pick real addresses they
> > control? Successfully subscribing is easy, and generating
>
Perry E. Metzger writes:
> have been significant academic studies of the market, and they
> indicate that your portrayal isn't accurate.
I was incautious; "smart" spammers go back at least to Canter and
Siegel. What I should have written was "spammers are greedy, but many
aren't too smart."
I
