Jump to content

eaolson

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About eaolson

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    EricVkng
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    eaolson
  1. eaolson

    Interesting article...

    Which is a pretty meaningless statement on behalf of the presenters. It seems a given that the amount of spam in the world is increasing. So users would receive more spam whether or not they followed the links in their spam. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
  2. I just want to say that that's in really bad taste.
  3. I have one persistent spammer sending me various offers. When I first parse these spams, the reporting addresses are various addresses at omeda.com, which is the spammer. These addresses apparently bounce, so they get redirected to devnull. When I look at the routing details, which I think refreshes the information, the parser comes up with an abuse address of abuse[at]sprint.net. When I re-parse the spam, reports then go to sprint.net rather than devnull. (For all the fat lot of good that will do.) My concern is that this isn't a one-time thing. It happens every time. This is the only spammer I've seen this sort of behavior. Is this expected behavior for the parser, or should I bring this up on spamcop.routing and ask for an override? Example: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z744853425zbe...94b5c5ec586a11z
  4. eaolson

    Remove link

    Why would anyone require your permission to link to your website? That's sort of the whole point of the WWW. If you don't want your stuff publically accessible, don't put it on a web page.
  5. eaolson

    All from the same place?

    Ah, here is is. www.sixpacksex.com (68.142.234.39). Trimmed a bit, here's the whois: Trying 68.142.234 at ARIN OrgName: Inktomi Corporation OrgID: INKT Address: 4100 East Third Avenue City: Foster City StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94404 Country: US NetRange: 68.142.192.0 - 68.142.255.255 CIDR: 68.142.192.0/18 NetName: INKTOMI-BLK-4 [...] AbuseHandle: ZI107-ARIN AbuseName: Inktomi Corporation AbusePhone: +1-650-653-2800 AbuseEmail: slurp[at]inktomi.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OrgTechHandle: ZI35-ARIN OrgTechName: Inktomi Corporation OrgTechPhone: +1-650-653-2800 OrgTechEmail: l3-ops[at]inktomi.com Is there some reason to think this abuse address is inappropriate? I notice that an abuse.net lookup of inkomi does NOT return the slurp[at] address.
  6. eaolson

    All from the same place?

    I'm not so sure about that, Wazoo. Just a few days ago, I came across a whois entry that directed abuse complaints to slurp[at]inktomi.com. I didn't know that about the Inktomi crawler, but thought it odd at the time it wasn't abuse[at] Unfortunately, I can't remember what I was looking up, so I can't show you.
  7. If the spam itself is explicit, I'd agree. (I like your analogy better, anyway.) On the other hand, I really didn't need the mental image of Ralsky exposing himself to me. Excuse me while I go wash my brain out with soap.
  8. I'd like to see that about email marketing in general. To an adult, I figure it's the equivalent of some guy hitting on you in a bar. Sleazy, rude, yes, but not illegal. Pity there's no email equivalent of throwing a drink in someone's face. Willfully (or negligently) doing the same to children is an entirely different matter.
  9. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to go after a spammer for sending such adult materials to children. There's probably some legal hooha about "explicit" vs. "pornographic" and they could certainly claim that they didn't know the recipient was a minor, but I don't know how much legal weight that would hold. The various authorities seem to have trouble going after spammers on technical grounds, probably for a number of reasons. I wonder if the situation would be different if they were going after spammers for "contributing to the deliquency of a minor" or something similar.
  10. eaolson

    Make Love not SPAM (courtesy Lycos)

    The article first mentions that Global Crossing was the first to blackhole the site. As I recall, they bought XO some time ago. (Right?) XO is currently #8 on Spamhaus's top ten spammers list. Maybe they're doing the blackholing not because the site is unethical, but because it endangers their business model? Now, how about a discussion about the ethics of a backbone making editorial decision about what content can or can not be viewed by its customers?
  11. eaolson

    Website redirectors

    Actually, it does. If you put just the obfuscated URL into the spam submittal box and process it, it will strip out most URL redirects, and deobfuscate the URL. It won't find 302 redirects, but that doesn't seem to apply to the OP's problem.
  12. True, but if there are a few spamtraps sprinkled in a list that could possibly contain millions of email addresses, it would take quite a while to make your way through it. To answer your original question, the spamtraps are not static.
  13. eaolson

    SpamCop is Bad

    And yet I (and I assume the rest of you) will continue to use it. Who cares what they think? Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, myself. I was amused by the OP's complaint about listing "entire servers." What would he prefer, just blocking the even numbered bits?
  14. eaolson

    ONLINE JOB -- 12000 RUPEES PER WEEK- deepa

    And I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just always amused (and somewhat frustrated) when I hear one politician or another say that importing drugs from Canada is such a wonderful idea. Ummm, no. It's not helping the problem, it's ignoring it. We're not really importing their drugs, we're importing their healthcare system.
  15. eaolson

    ONLINE JOB -- 12000 RUPEES PER WEEK- deepa

    ...Another example of how the Libertarians are right -- government regulation ****s us over, again! <g> 16779[/snapback] Just to throw my $0.02 in, I'd like to point out that the only reason said drugs are cheaper in Canada is because of government regulation. If Canada didn't have a more socialzed health care system than the USA, those drugs wouldn't be as cheap as they are.
×