Friday, September 24, 1999, 11:12:39 AM, Thomas wrote:
> I still think that overhead is not necessarily the concern of
> spammers. If they want to get the spam out, and it takes 35 minuters
> to do so instead of june 1 minute, but the chances are that they are
> read, they'll have success. Empirical data says one in 1,000 is a
> positive response for them.
And in that same 35 minutes they could pump out ~120% more addresses. So
if 5 is a "good" return, then 690 must be much better.
> This was very educational, thanks. But how does this help the machine
> to tell spam from legit mail?
It doesn't. That is the point. All of the spam filtering is on the
technical specifications. Even the points I made on my filter are on
technical patterns and leave the final judgement to the end user.
However, the whole reason I wrote that message was to educate people on
exactly how mail works, what steps ISPs normally take, why they take them and,
mort importantly, what steps they most likely will not take. I was, and still
am, trying to quell FUD from various sources who aren't informed in the
operations of email in any capacity and are, for all intents and purposes,
guessing.
> I have to say that I started following Leif Gregory's "How to avoid
> spam" and have forwarded spams to the "root@" of all domains that I
> could find in the headers, and the number of spams have decreased
> tremendously.
And the number of Postmasters who are pissed at you have increase
tremendously.
> I believe spammers have a list, equivalent to ORB, that lists email
> addresses known as "hostile" and have me taken off most their "One million
> email adresses" I got offered earlier.
Hmmm-mmm, they don't, trust me. Considering the number of bounces they
generate and the fly-by-night tactics they use they really don't *CARE* if
someone is hostile. The whole economics of it is that they know they are
going to be shut down in ~1-2 hours anyway and are willing to lose a small
modicum of cash to get as many addresses out as possible. Good addresses,
bad addresses, friendly addresses, hostile addresses all are nothing.
Addresses, pure and simple.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
