new way to send pump and dump or...

[karlisma]

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1268887032zf...1d38e28ea80849z

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1268887034z3...df0543b4c1bae1z

imageshack.us doesn't parse... why?

is it because it is allowed to link messages to here from imageshack? or?

[irony on]

spamer thinks that he has found a new way to send spam messages, thinking (maybe) that i use mail client which automatically opens http content... or does he think i will ever click on that link?

And: how many messages have to be sent so that it works out (makes revenue)?

[irony off]

[Wazoo]

Sorry, don't see anything 'new' in your samples. Both provide a spamvertised link to a .GIF file .... the parser hasn't offered to 'report' graphics since almost the beginning.

Why? General spammer practice was to point to innocent bystanders, things like a stock chart on a Yahoo page, the 'sign up now for your yyyy e-mail account" viral advertising blurbs, etc.

Have to assume that it's the same spammer involved, but this same conversation exists over in the spamcop newsgroup .....

[karlisma]

Sorry, don't see anything 'new' in your samples. Both provide a spamvertised link to a .GIF file .... the parser hasn't offered to 'report' graphics since almost the beginning.

Why? General spammer practice was to point to innocent bystanders, things like a stock chart on a Yahoo page, the 'sign up now for your yyyy e-mail account" viral advertising blurbs, etc.

Have to assume that it's the same spammer involved, but this same conversation exists over in the spamcop newsgroup .....

aha, that' s why it doesn't parse... i see.

sorry, was looking to but serach wound up with different links at imageshack used here to illustrate something the poster had in mind.

is hosting such spam messages allowed on imageshack? Don't they really wanna know, which smartass is wasting their bandwidth ignoring original purpose of their service?

[StevenUnderwood]

is hosting such spam messages allowed on imageshack? Don't they really wanna know, which smartass is wasting their bandwidth ignoring original purpose of their service?

Short version of the ImageShack® Terms of Service:

Don't upload anything that can be even remotely construed as porn, copyrighted material, harassment, or spam. If you do, we will ban you, delete all your images, and prevent you from viewing any images hosted on ImageShack®.

[Farelf]

Stolen from NG

I had 6 of these come in this morning and reported them via a link on their main page (report abuse or something).

I got some automated response on all 6..

One was taken down later on (although I doubt by my report alone).

I gave up on the next 200+ that came in... (spread over 20 domains).

Looks like Mr Spammy has decided imageshack to be their host of choice for a wee while.

From thread "SpamCop don't detect imageshack.us" concerning which Mike Easter opined

Reporting to imageshack is probably/ might be/ useful. Free reporters

can do it manually, paid reporters can do it as an additional notified.

[ps - also quoted your short version of IS TOS over there Steven]

[shinerweb]

Just as an update, imageshack did remove all the images I reported, though I suspect that was down to multiple reports rather than anything I reported to them alone.

They didn't send a response to let me know, though I didn't really expect one (or want).

But at least they seem on the ball at enforcing their TOS...

Regards

Chris

[Farelf]

TOS trotted over to NGs since Mike Easter noted IS pages were painfully slow to load, putting him off looking for their TOS. An explanation was offered in grc.spam

ImageShack's web site times out attempting to reach any of the contact pages. I imagine that they're getting hammered with complaints. <sigh> In fact they time out with anything I tried past the front page.

He went on to note the prolificacy of pump and dump spammers, 12 different IS links in one batch of his spam.

[And thanks Chris, for the update immediately above]