Jump to content

gazza

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About gazza

  • Rank
    Member
  1. gazza

    Bond system for e-mail accounts

    The (unwanted) mail I got was probably from people I didn't know who had worked out how to do 'mass' (i.e. 10s to 100s) mailshots from e-mail addresses garnered from various sources. I guess it was therefore a foretaste (!) of spam. It was all harmless back then, not like today. PS. Yes, I know you spell your name with a 'v'. That was deliberate, since you misspelled my name originally.
  2. gazza

    Bond system for e-mail accounts

    I'm sorry, but according to the useful references above, apparently that should be 27 years.....
  3. gazza

    Bond system for e-mail accounts

    No, Stephen, I didn't, but I was using its predecessors long before it came to be the beast we have all come to love (and hate).
  4. gazza

    Bond system for e-mail accounts

    OK, point taken. My reason for the suggestion was simple: why are there so many open proxies? One would have thought that ISPs should help their customers when setting up their accounts to avoid becoming unintentional spam/virus dissemminators. Is it just an educational issue, or am I missing something more fundamental? The phrase 'shutting the stable door' springs to mind, regarding he current approach of only reacting to reports of spam emanating from a customer's computer. Perhaps the ISPs could use the software I suggested to spot possible problems and contact the customer(s), rather than actually changing the network config for them without their knowledge.
  5. gazza

    Bond system for e-mail accounts

    Although it certainly accelerated the proliferation of spam, spam-like communications existed long before the Internet become what we know and love today. I'm only sorry I didn't keep copies of the rubbish e-mails I used to receive on our old Honeywell and CDC mainframes. And yes, e-mail did exist even then....
  6. gazza

    Bond system for e-mail accounts

    No, of course not. I speak from long experience of spam and noting how its nature has changed over the last 25 years or so. I'm thinking in particular of the Nigerian '419' scams that the relevant ISPs nearly always deal with by closing the account. Perhaps that reflects the relatively crude methods used by these would be fraudsters. Personally I find these rather entertaining (although those poor souls who fall foul of them might not). I agree that the more sophisticated spammers use alternative methods that would not benefit from a bond scheme, but then there are alternative counter-measures that are being developed..... On a related tack, given the proliferation of hijacking software, wouldn't it be nice if some kind philanthropic souls wrote similar software ('bene-ware'?, c.f. 'mal-ware') to actually clean up the infected machines and let the owner know they have/had a problem?
  7. Since most, if not all, spam emanates from 'free' e-mail accounts, why not encourage ISPs to apply a bond system, as opposed to charging per e-mail, in which each user has to deposit a bond with the ISP as surety for using their system? If the account is misused then the bond would be forfeit. The idea would be to pitch the bond at a level that it would make it unprofitable for spammers, say $50-100?
  8. gazza

    Preventing False Spam Reports

    Oh good grief! Every sane person acknowledges that spam is bad, e.g. is costings billions in wasted time/resources each year world-wide. The current fight against spam is akin to war. Ergo, there will be innocent casualties, aka 'friendly fire', as the battle is waged and tactics by both sides evolve. The crux of this thread seems to be whether spam reporters deliberately file reports, i.e. 'maliciously', which on the face of it is bad, or by accident, which, to be honest, when bombarded by dozens of potential spam e-mails per day, is highly probable. Surely if a user erroneously reports an e-mail as spam there are sufficient safeguards build into the system to catch this? On a legal note: 1) the complainant would probably have to prove that the report was actually malicious and not inadvertent; 2) perhaps only Europeans should report 'spam' emanating from the US as there are, as far as I know, no international civil laws regarding libel.
  9. Looking at this old thread, it seems I re-opened a can of worms! Perhaps I'll carry on using the Subsume 'tool' to report spam from Apple's Mail, when it works - which is 99% of the time, and just ignore those it can't cope with.
  10. SpamCop 1.3.1. I downloaded it from www.subsume.com over 16 months ago and it has worked fine for all versions of MacOSX up to 10.3, apart from the problem e-mails in question. Has anyone who uses this utility had similar problems?
  11. None at all - the e-mails just remain in my Junk folder. When I have the time I manually parse the headers and forward to the relevant ISP directly.
  12. To repeat, I can't get a tracking URL as I can't submit the spam e-mail to SpamCop in the first place. Please ignore the topic description - the problem appears to be with the SpamCop reporting plug-in in the OSX Mail application.
  13. OK, so how do I get a 'Tracking URL' if I can't report it? Should I forward it someone? Also, excuse me for being paranoid, but the editing was simply to remove any information about me.....
  14. I just received another two identical spams that I can't report. Is this something to do with the attached image, or the fact that it is a multi-part mail? From: 242MGNHP[at]attglobal.net Subject: {spam?} No more spyware Date: 7 March 2005 14:47:26 GMT To: xxxxxxxxx Received: from xxxxxxxxxxx by xxxxxxxxxx with ESMTP id j27F96BW028026 for xxxxxxxxxxxx; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:09:06 GMT Received: from [202.155.86.40] (helo=TAYANG) byxxxxxxxxxx (Exim: virusscanner) with smtp id 1D8JgN-0000HI-OY for xxxxxxxxxxxx; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:09:06 +0000 Received: from zzksvebn019.yeah.net (20.46.51.48) by p4-dok6.yeah.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:49:26 -0400 Received: from Katharinemcb96mnt674o258x (40.244.40.160) by vphvyah2.yeah.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 168-962-607-284-631-8488600) with SMTP id <138740873495174.AEOK416.bkohryo8408.yeah.net[at]haydenn3b5d636s> for xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:47:26 +0100 Message-Id: <8126dtp37bxf554$184878$l02fyo648[at]Katharineat77so832jy15pdh> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="%OLATTACH1" X-Scan-Signature: e809143705ea52d8427a69e1128b1c45 X-spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99=5.4,FOR_FREE=0.592,HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN=0.1,HTML_MESSAGE=0.1 autolearn=no version=2.64 X-spam-Level: ****** X-spam-Flag: YES Content-Length: 61114
  15. Whoops! I meant Apple Mail, not Safari (I use the latter as my Web browser). The example I gave was cut and pasted directly from Mail, without the attached image.
×