|
OT. new antispam laws in the US
For those that don't know about it.....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031122/80/eeo1i.html -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... For those that don't know about it..... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031122/80/eeo1i.html Regards Bob Yippee - now the rest of the world............. Jenny |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"JennyC" wrote in message after me For those that don't know about it..... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031122/80/eeo1i.html Yippee - now the rest of the world............. Well seeing as most of the worlds spam comes from about 200 people, mostly from the US, and one town in Florida is known as the Spam Capital of the World it has to be excellent news if the law is worded correctly and policed. Trouble is the US wanted an "Opt Out" law unlike the EU which wants an "Op In" law, I'm not sure about this present bill though. One thing is, it would be illegal for them to hide their ID as they do now. Any control must be better than now, we get about 100 spam's per day. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words: "JennyC" wrote in message after me For those that don't know about it..... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031122/80/eeo1i.html Yippee - now the rest of the world............. Well seeing as most of the worlds spam comes from about 200 people, mostly from the US, and one town in Florida is known as the Spam Capital of the World it has to be excellent news if the law is worded correctly and policed. Trouble is the US wanted an "Opt Out" law unlike the EU which wants an "Op In" law, I'm not sure about this present bill though. One thing is, it would be illegal for them to hide their ID as they do now. Any control must be better than now, we get about 100 spam's per day. Anti-spam legislation has been enacted by Parliament and comes into force early - middle of December. It becomes some sort of an offence to disseminate it. However, just who is going to investigate complaints and how they could have any effect on spam from abroad is a mystery. Perhaps they want to create jobs for several thousand new civil servants? -- Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano, iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03) |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:28:59 +0100, "JennyC" wrote:
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... For those that don't know about it..... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031122/80/eeo1i.html Regards Bob Yippee - now the rest of the world............. Ireland and Spain already did the same. Not that I recall ever having spam from either. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In message , Bob Hobden
writes Trouble is the US wanted an "Opt Out" law unlike the EU which wants an "Op In" law, I'm not sure about this present bill though. One thing is, it would be illegal for them to hide their ID as they do now. Any control must be better than now, we get about 100 spam's per day. Horrible thought: I've just trawled through news reports on this, and found: "For the first time during the Internet era, American consumers will have the ability to say no to spam," said Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., who spearheaded the negotiations. Could that mean that somehow the rest of us won't be able to opt out!!?? (So far today we've had over 200 spam - do you suppose the spammers are all going mad before they are nipped in the bud?) Klara -- |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:54:14 +0000, klara
wrote: In message , Bob Hobden writes Trouble is the US wanted an "Opt Out" law unlike the EU which wants an "Op In" law, I'm not sure about this present bill though. One thing is, it would be illegal for them to hide their ID as they do now. Any control must be better than now, we get about 100 spam's per day. Horrible thought: I've just trawled through news reports on this, and found: "For the first time during the Internet era, American consumers will have the ability to say no to spam," said Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., who spearheaded the negotiations. Could that mean that somehow the rest of us won't be able to opt out!!?? (So far today we've had over 200 spam - do you suppose the spammers are all going mad before they are nipped in the bud?) I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:17:50 +0000, Jane Ransom
wrote: ~In article , martin writes ~ ~I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. ~ ~We have found that if you bounce spams (envelope rejection), you are ~soon taken off the mailing lists. When the address harvesters guarantee ~to provide, x million active addresses, they mean *active*. A bounce is ~not an active address!! ~ ~We know this because recently, when my spousal unit got his new machine, ~he sent just *one* measly little post to his news group before ~remembering to hide his email address. Within hours we were receiving ~spams and within 24 this amounted to dozens. We then changed our active ~mail box and bounced everything from the old mail box. Within a week we ~were receiving only the odd spam and now don't seem to receive any. ~ ~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I don't think it can bounce stuff. -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
|
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Jane Ransom
writes In article , martin writes I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. We have found that if you bounce spams (envelope rejection), you are soon taken off the mailing lists. When the address harvesters guarantee to provide, x million active addresses, they mean *active*. A bounce is not an active address!! We know this because recently, when my spousal unit got his new machine, he sent just *one* measly little post to his news group before remembering to hide his email address. Within hours we were receiving spams and within 24 this amounted to dozens. We then changed our active mail box and bounced everything from the old mail box. Within a week we were receiving only the odd spam and now don't seem to receive any. Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, they are either throw away ones or an unknowing host. I have been adjusting the rejection rules for a number of months now and haven't seen any reduction in the amount of overall mail, just the amount that's getting through. AIUI there is usually no way back to the spammer from the email that you are sent. I also get a lot of returned rejected mail saying that the address is unknown :-((( -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Jane Ransom
writes In article , martin writes I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. We have found that if you bounce spams (envelope rejection), you are soon taken off the mailing lists. When the address harvesters guarantee to provide, x million active addresses, they mean *active*. A bounce is not an active address!! We know this because recently, when my spousal unit got his new machine, he sent just *one* measly little post to his news group before remembering to hide his email address. Within hours we were receiving spams and within 24 this amounted to dozens. We then changed our active mail box and bounced everything from the old mail box. Within a week we were receiving only the odd spam and now don't seem to receive any. Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, they are either throw away ones or an unknowing host. I have been adjusting the rejection rules for a number of months now and haven't seen any reduction in the amount of overall mail, just the amount that's getting through. AIUI there is usually no way back to the spammer from the email that you are sent. I also get a lot of returned rejected mail saying that the address is unknown :-((( -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes ~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I don't think it can bounce stuff. I use Turnpike so can't tell you if Agent has that capability - sorry :( You have to use something like Mailwasher. No you don't, you just have to use a good mail reader - we use Turnpike. Unfortunately some Spam uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to innocent people. The spammers from harvested addresses are businesses touting for more business - they want replies to their adverts, they do not want bounced stuff. Therefore they take you off their mailing list if you do not appear to be a valid address. Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. Nope . . . . you are WRONG. After bouncing the mails that came to us after my husband's little lapse, WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY SPAM on that mailbox. -- Jane Ransom in Lancaster. I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"martin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:33:00 +0000 (UTC), (jane) wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:17:50 +0000, Jane Ransom wrote: ~In article , martin writes ~ ~I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. ~ ~We have found that if you bounce spams (envelope rejection), you are ~soon taken off the mailing lists. When the address harvesters guarantee ~to provide, x million active addresses, they mean *active*. A bounce is ~not an active address!! ~ ~We know this because recently, when my spousal unit got his new machine, ~he sent just *one* measly little post to his news group before ~remembering to hide his email address. Within hours we were receiving ~spams and within 24 this amounted to dozens. We then changed our active ~mail box and bounced everything from the old mail box. Within a week we ~were receiving only the odd spam and now don't seem to receive any. ~ ~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I don't think it can bounce stuff. You have to use something like Mailwasher. Unfortunately some Spam uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to innocent people. Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. I used to use Mailwasher before I got my ISP to filter out my spam. I never noticed any significant drop in spam which I could associate with whether I bounced or just deleted. Franz |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:47:21 +0100, martin wrote:
~On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:33:00 +0000 (UTC), (jane) wrote: ~ ~On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:17:50 +0000, Jane Ransom ~wrote: ~ ~~In article , martin writes ~~ ~~I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. ~~ ~~We have found that if you bounce spams (envelope rejection), you are ~~soon taken off the mailing lists. When the address harvesters guarantee ~~to provide, x million active addresses, they mean *active*. A bounce is ~~not an active address!! ~~ ~~We know this because recently, when my spousal unit got his new machine, ~~he sent just *one* measly little post to his news group before ~~remembering to hide his email address. Within hours we were receiving ~~spams and within 24 this amounted to dozens. We then changed our active ~~mail box and bounced everything from the old mail box. Within a week we ~~were receiving only the odd spam and now don't seem to receive any. ~~ ~~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) ~ ~How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I ~don't think it can bounce stuff. ~ ~You have to use something like Mailwasher. Unfortunately some Spam ~uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to ~innocent people. Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. A lot of my spam is bounced stuff that has me forged as the sender. I am forever emailing Demon abuse saying that I've been used yet again and please not to think I'm a spammer if anyone complains. 250+ today and counting... one useful mail. Sadly I suspect that posting here has upped my visibility so that I'm getting more. Though I can filter out a lot of it - anyone I know goes into folders immediately, obvious spam gets filtered by keywords into a junk folder for immediate deletion without reading (or I get incensed at the filth) and I get about 20 to vet. Obviously, I'd rather not have to... Unfortunately, occasionally I delete a genuine mail from someone who hasn't mailed me before. *sigh* I think I'm going to have to switch to a different username and bin anything to jane. That should remove the rest of the spam or at least make it 100% filterable. -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes ~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I don't think it can bounce stuff. I use Turnpike so can't tell you if Agent has that capability - sorry :( You have to use something like Mailwasher. No you don't, you just have to use a good mail reader - we use Turnpike. Unfortunately some Spam uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to innocent people. The spammers from harvested addresses are businesses touting for more business - they want replies to their adverts, they do not want bounced stuff. Therefore they take you off their mailing list if you do not appear to be a valid address. Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. Nope . . . . you are WRONG. After bouncing the mails that came to us after my husband's little lapse, WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY SPAM on that mailbox. -- Jane Ransom in Lancaster. I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"martin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:33:00 +0000 (UTC), (jane) wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:17:50 +0000, Jane Ransom wrote: ~In article , martin writes ~ ~I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. ~ ~We have found that if you bounce spams (envelope rejection), you are ~soon taken off the mailing lists. When the address harvesters guarantee ~to provide, x million active addresses, they mean *active*. A bounce is ~not an active address!! ~ ~We know this because recently, when my spousal unit got his new machine, ~he sent just *one* measly little post to his news group before ~remembering to hide his email address. Within hours we were receiving ~spams and within 24 this amounted to dozens. We then changed our active ~mail box and bounced everything from the old mail box. Within a week we ~were receiving only the odd spam and now don't seem to receive any. ~ ~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I don't think it can bounce stuff. You have to use something like Mailwasher. Unfortunately some Spam uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to innocent people. Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. I used to use Mailwasher before I got my ISP to filter out my spam. I never noticed any significant drop in spam which I could associate with whether I bounced or just deleted. Franz |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:47:21 +0100, martin wrote:
~On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:33:00 +0000 (UTC), (jane) wrote: ~ ~On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:17:50 +0000, Jane Ransom ~wrote: ~ ~~In article , martin writes ~~ ~~I have had a ten fold increase in spam over the last couple of days. ~~ ~~We have found that if you bounce spams (envelope rejection), you are ~~soon taken off the mailing lists. When the address harvesters guarantee ~~to provide, x million active addresses, they mean *active*. A bounce is ~~not an active address!! ~~ ~~We know this because recently, when my spousal unit got his new machine, ~~he sent just *one* measly little post to his news group before ~~remembering to hide his email address. Within hours we were receiving ~~spams and within 24 this amounted to dozens. We then changed our active ~~mail box and bounced everything from the old mail box. Within a week we ~~were receiving only the odd spam and now don't seem to receive any. ~~ ~~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) ~ ~How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I ~don't think it can bounce stuff. ~ ~You have to use something like Mailwasher. Unfortunately some Spam ~uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to ~innocent people. Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. A lot of my spam is bounced stuff that has me forged as the sender. I am forever emailing Demon abuse saying that I've been used yet again and please not to think I'm a spammer if anyone complains. 250+ today and counting... one useful mail. Sadly I suspect that posting here has upped my visibility so that I'm getting more. Though I can filter out a lot of it - anyone I know goes into folders immediately, obvious spam gets filtered by keywords into a junk folder for immediate deletion without reading (or I get incensed at the filth) and I get about 20 to vet. Obviously, I'd rather not have to... Unfortunately, occasionally I delete a genuine mail from someone who hasn't mailed me before. *sigh* I think I'm going to have to switch to a different username and bin anything to jane. That should remove the rest of the spam or at least make it 100% filterable. -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , David david.simp
writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? -- Jane Ransom in Lancaster. I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , David david.simp
writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? -- Jane Ransom in Lancaster. I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
........So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no Spam on
that mail box? ........" I'd say that you were lucky. I've been bouncing Spam now for almost 2 months and in that time it has more than doubled.Many of the spamers use a different address and name 2 or 3 times a day. What gets to me are all the offers we get that when you check say Residents of US only, I think that this sort of thing makes up around 20% of what I get, You ask to be removed, you bounce it and still it comes daily. Oh yes..I am using Mailwasher. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Jane Ransom
writes In article , David david.simp writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Jane Ransom
writes In article , David david.simp writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:45:30 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: I used to use Mailwasher before I got my ISP to filter out my spam. I never noticed any significant drop in spam which I could associate with whether I bounced or just deleted. that's in line with what I have read on other newsgroups. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:00:13 +0000, Jane Ransom
wrote: In article , David david.simp writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I can't. Nor can I account for your experience being different to most other peoples. I'd say you are lucky. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
|
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:11:38 +0000, Jane Ransom
wrote: ~In article , martin writes ~~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) ~ ~How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I ~don't think it can bounce stuff. ~ ~I use Turnpike so can't tell you if Agent has that capability - sorry :( ~ ~You have to use something like Mailwasher. ~ ~No you don't, you just have to use a good mail reader - we use Turnpike. ~ ~Unfortunately some Spam ~uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to ~innocent people. ~ ~The spammers from harvested addresses are businesses touting for more ~business - they want replies to their adverts, they do not want bounced ~stuff. Therefore they take you off their mailing list if you do not ~appear to be a valid address. ~ ~Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. ~ ~Nope . . . . you are WRONG. ~After bouncing the mails that came to us after my husband's little ~lapse, WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY SPAM on that mailbox. Mailwasher downloaded and installed. Neat. I'll give it a go and let you know what happens next time an antispam thread appears! -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:11:38 +0000, Jane Ransom
wrote: ~In article , martin writes ~~Believe me BOUNCING SPAM WORKS :)))))))))))))) ~ ~How does one do it please? I have a really old version of Agent and I ~don't think it can bounce stuff. ~ ~I use Turnpike so can't tell you if Agent has that capability - sorry :( ~ ~You have to use something like Mailwasher. ~ ~No you don't, you just have to use a good mail reader - we use Turnpike. ~ ~Unfortunately some Spam ~uses forged FROM: and you could get into trouble by bouncing to ~innocent people. ~ ~The spammers from harvested addresses are businesses touting for more ~business - they want replies to their adverts, they do not want bounced ~stuff. Therefore they take you off their mailing list if you do not ~appear to be a valid address. ~ ~Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. ~ ~Nope . . . . you are WRONG. ~After bouncing the mails that came to us after my husband's little ~lapse, WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY SPAM on that mailbox. Mailwasher downloaded and installed. Neat. I'll give it a go and let you know what happens next time an antispam thread appears! -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
The message
from Jane Ransom contains these words: Most spammer sites ignore bounced mail. Nope . . . . you are WRONG. After bouncing the mails that came to us after my husband's little lapse, WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY SPAM on that mailbox. Not until a new CD of 'working addresses' goes on the market. Most of these spammers only use the list once anyway, and never see the bounces or even know about them. All they are interested in is the very small proportion of hits that generate replies to a website (I'd guess, never having read any of them.). -- Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano, iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03) |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
The message
from Jane Ransom contains these words: In article , David david.simp writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? That list has been superceded by new ones. I can promise you that you *WILL* get spam on it from time-to-time, when a random address generator aims at your ISP. -- Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano, iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03) |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
The message
from (jane) contains these words: /snip/ Unfortunately, occasionally I delete a genuine mail from someone who hasn't mailed me before. *sigh* I think I'm going to have to switch to a different username and bin anything to jane. That should remove the rest of the spam or at least make it 100% filterable. Having a genuine address and using it for usenet posts is asking for trouble. Having a valid address and using it as a spamtrap is an excellent idea, but remember to code a reply-to ad somewhere near your sig if you want any genuine replies. -- Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano, iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03) |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
Subject: OT. new antispam laws in the US
From: Jaques d'Alltrades Date: 24/11/2003 11:17 GMT Standard Time Message-id: snip That list has been superceded by new ones. I can promise you that you *WILL* get spam on it from time-to-time, when a random address generator aims at your ISP. As an experiment a couple of weeks ago I created a new aol screen name. All I did was create it and leave. I've never used it. I checked it on Sunday, there were of 50 bits of spam, to a name never used. It just shows how much is random generation on the "someone must have that name" principle. -- Rhiannon http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/ Q: how many witches does it take to change a lightbulb? A: depends on what you want it changed into! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On 24 Nov 2003 12:00:21 GMT, emon (Rhiannon S)
wrote: Subject: OT. new antispam laws in the US From: Jaques d'Alltrades Date: 24/11/2003 11:17 GMT Standard Time Message-id: snip That list has been superceded by new ones. I can promise you that you *WILL* get spam on it from time-to-time, when a random address generator aims at your ISP. As an experiment a couple of weeks ago I created a new aol screen name. All I did was create it and leave. I've never used it. I checked it on Sunday, there were of 50 bits of spam, to a name never used. It just shows how much is random generation on the "someone must have that name" principle. What did you call yourself? We have 4 e-mail addresses based on our family christian names. My daughter's christian name is not so common, her unused account was overflowing with spam within a few weeks. My son has a very common christian name and his mailbox created at the same time was still empty a year after I created the account for him. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:25:27 -0000, David Hill wrote:
.......So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no Spam on that mail box? ........" I'd say that you were lucky. I've been bouncing Spam now for almost 2 months and in that time it has more than doubled.Many of the spamers use a different address and name 2 or 3 times a day. What gets to me are all the offers we get that when you check say Residents of US only, I think that this sort of thing makes up around 20% of what I get, You ask to be removed, you bounce it and still it comes daily. Oh yes..I am using Mailwasher. I too used Mailwasher, bouncing all the emails. Most of the were undeliverable, and I still kept receiving the same from the same . If I had taken up all certain offers I would no longer be able to get out of bed as I'd be front heavy and topple over! ;-)) Also I found that I had blacklisted myself. So I have reverted to Spam Buster, which does not have the ability to bounce but is better at blacklisting. I am also experimenting with 40tude, but not bottomed it yest. Cheers John T -- To reply direct please remove the wet from the towill |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:26:58 +0000, John Towill
wrote: I am also experimenting with 40tude, but not bottomed it yest. I think Agent is easier to use. The format of the 40tude's windows keeps changing and I can't find out why. In most respects Agent and 40tude are very similar. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
The message
from martin contains these words: I checked it on Sunday, there were of 50 bits of spam, to a name never used. It just shows how much is random generation on the "someone must have that name" principle. What did you call yourself? We have 4 e-mail addresses based on our family christian names. My daughter's christian name is not so common, her unused account was overflowing with spam within a few weeks. My son has a very common christian name and his mailbox created at the same time was still empty a year after I created the account for him. Luck of the draw. I'd guess that it randomly generates a numeric address rather than guessing at usernames. -- Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano, iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03) |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:54:56 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote: The message from martin contains these words: I checked it on Sunday, there were of 50 bits of spam, to a name never used. It just shows how much is random generation on the "someone must have that name" principle. What did you call yourself? We have 4 e-mail addresses based on our family christian names. My daughter's christian name is not so common, her unused account was overflowing with spam within a few weeks. My son has a very common christian name and his mailbox created at the same time was still empty a year after I created the account for him. Luck of the draw. I'd guess that it randomly generates a numeric address rather than guessing at usernames. not in this case, it randomly guessed user names, it didn't even bcc, I could see all the combinations of my christian name plus random letters. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
Subject: OT. new antispam laws in the US
From: martin Date: 24/11/2003 12:06 GMT Standard Time Message-id: On 24 Nov 2003 12:00:21 GMT, emon (Rhiannon S) wrote: Subject: OT. new antispam laws in the US From: Jaques d'Alltrades Date: 24/11/2003 11:17 GMT Standard Time Message-id: snip That list has been superceded by new ones. I can promise you that you *WILL* get spam on it from time-to-time, when a random address generator aims at your ISP. As an experiment a couple of weeks ago I created a new aol screen name. All I did was create it and leave. I've never used it. I checked it on Sunday, there were of 50 bits of spam, to a name never used. It just shows how much is random generation on the "someone must have that name" principle. What did you call yourself? We have 4 e-mail addresses based on our family christian names. My daughter's christian name is not so common, her unused account was overflowing with spam within a few weeks. My son has a very common christian name and his mailbox created at the same time was still empty a year after I created the account for him. A varient on my forename with a couple of letters bolted on at the end. -- Rhiannon http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/ Q: how many witches does it take to change a lightbulb? A: depends on what you want it changed into! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
|
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Jane Ransom
writes Nope . . . . you are WRONG. After bouncing the mails that came to us after my husband's little lapse, WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY SPAM on that mailbox. Most spam that I've seen has forged return addresses, i.e. the bounce message will not reach the perpetrator. However, I've seen it said that a lot of spam nowadays has web bugs in it. (The archetypal web bug is a one pixel GIF image.) Given this, it is plausible that if spam to an address is not read (bounced or deleted unread) or read in such a fashion that embedded, remote, images are not accessed, that the address will be recognised as not active and removed from the spammer's list. However, an email address that I used for one mailing list escaped into the wild towards the beginning of this year (I think a virus infection caused a participant to spew his address book across the net - it occurred at the same time as a virus storm). I'm still getting spam to that address, even tho' it's been bounced for months. Bouncing the mails appears to have worked for you in this instance, but it would seem to be an unwarranted assumption to conclude that it works as a general rule. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter