flagginator Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 The Citibank site mentions sending spoofed emails to: emailspoof [at]citigroup.com and spam [at]uce.gov I know about: uce [at]ftc.gov But, never heard of: spam [at]uce.gov Oh, and why do they pick on Citibank? I only get them for Citibank and for US Bank. I am a customer of neither so that should be my first clue that it might be phishing Of course the other big two are: eBay spoofs and PayPal spoofs Bank of America actually sends out emails telling you to click on links for action. I busted their chops on it but they say, "oh well that's the way we do it". They don't even send you to their site: They send you to Primedia or Comedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 spam <at> uce.gov vice uce <at> ftc.gov .... see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...792entry13792 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Wazoo, seems that pointer was already dicussed ad noseum ...can it not be pinned in an FAQ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Wazoo, seems that pointer was already dicussed ad noseum ...can it not be pinned in an FAQ? Done, and added the FTC's site to the list, but am guessing that this is one of those "there's too much stuff" items <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSmooth Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Sorry if this is off-topic, but I noticed in this thread that several users tried to mask the FTC's e-mail address (such as spam [at] uce . gov, etc) and it left me curious. While I understand the reasoning of doing this when posting one's personal or business e-mail address to hide it from bots, what is the reasoning of hiding the spam reporting addresses? I mean, if spammers were stupid enough to actually send spam to the spam reporting addresses that their bots retrieved, wouldn't that be a good thing? I'd think that would simply be convenient for anti-spam efforts, eliminating the "middleman" spam reporter. Or am I completely missing something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Sorry if this is off-topic, but I noticed in this thread that several users tried to mask the FTC's e-mail address (such as spam [at] uce . gov, etc) and it left me curious. While I understand the reasoning of doing this when posting one's personal or business e-mail address to hide it from bots, what is the reasoning of hiding the spam reporting addresses? I mean, if spammers were stupid enough to actually send spam to the spam reporting addresses that their bots retrieved, wouldn't that be a good thing? I'd think that would simply be convenient for anti-spam efforts, eliminating the "middleman" spam reporter. Or am I completely missing something else? 16726[/snapback] ...Good question, IMHO. My thought would be that it's a [good] habit to "mask" e-mail addresses to avoid harvesting and contributors are just not bothering to think about the advantages of not masking in the case of the FTC address. As you poing out, in this case, harvesting would be wonderful! <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flagginator Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 Personally I do not think the FTC is equipped to handle the whole spam load. We already clogged up their ftc.gov spam reporting address and brought the FTC to its knees email-wise. What are they doing with this stuff anyway? Are they prosecuting enough to make a difference? Or, are they whizzing in the wind and already overtaxed by the current level of submissions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 They are still in the data gathering stage :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 I don't know what the FTC is doing now, but they did warn pyramid scheme users that what they were doing was illegal - and maybe actually prosecuted some. Also, they did make a report that the 'remove' was bogus in at least 40% (or some other percentage) of UCE and a recommendation that no one use the remove in an unsolicited email. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 I don't know what the FTC is doing now, but they did warn pyramid scheme users that what they were doing was illegal - and maybe actually prosecuted some. Also, they did make a report that the 'remove' was bogus in at least 40% (or some other percentage) of UCE and a recommendation that no one use the remove in an unsolicited email. Miss Betsy 16745[/snapback] Wasn't it the FTC that helped draft the CANSPAM act that said they must use a valid remove link/address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Sorry if this is off-topic, but I noticed in this thread that several users tried to mask the FTC's e-mail address (such as spam [at] uce . gov, etc) and it left me curious. While I understand the reasoning of doing this when posting one's personal or business e-mail address to hide it from bots, what is the reasoning of hiding the spam reporting addresses? I'll go with "standardization" ... I'm getting nowhere fast in the "How to use this ...." FAQ (lots of excuses <g>) ... but I'd rather not have the confusion of why some addresses are munged and others aren't. I'd like to go with all addresses should be "adjusted" ... not that it actually solves anything other than making it a bit more of an effort required to scrape them. I mean, if spammers were stupid enough to actually send spam to the spam reporting addresses that their bots retrieved, wouldn't that be a good thing? I'd think that would simply be convenient for anti-spam efforts, eliminating the "middleman" spam reporter. Or am I completely missing something else? Some folks go with the "spammers are stupid" theory, but ..... those top 20 - 50 spend a lot of time either themselves or hiring smart folks to work the system to get around the blocks, filters, and code that are worked by folks on the other side of the fence. It is a general assumption (yeas, bad word) that any spammer that has been around for more than a few months automatically scrubs those outgoing addresses for things like ".gov" .. pulling the old standby of "NOSPAM" as part of an address, etc .... I'll admit that the only "real" thing being accomplished with the minimal here thus far is trying to get around the basic e-mail harvesters that are simply grabbing anything with the embedded "[at]" symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 What are they doing with this stuff anyway? Are they prosecuting enough to make a difference? Or, are they whizzing in the wind and already overtaxed by the current level of submissions? Some old stuff; http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,55972,00.html and some recent and definitive stuff; http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/3676.asp 12 Things FTC Wants You to Know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.