Wazoo Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Stolen SpamCop newsgroup traffic; Wrom: BOHMKHJYFMYXO Newsgroups: spamcop Subject: Re: munging not sufficient Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:07:05 -0700 Anton Haumer wrote: > Well I'm unsure abput mungeing ... > I could also consider: > "If a spammer sees enough reports sent by me (unmunged!) >Â he will avoid troubles and delete my address ..." > > Wrong? There are spammers and there are spammers and then there are spammers. Some spammers would like to believe that they have a legitimate mailing list which they bought and which they would like to improve by performing 'listwashing' - in which they /actually/ remove addresses which do not want that mail. Some other spammers would like for you to confuse those listwashing spammers with the other forms of list management, which is to move names around from one list to another.Â This class of spammer would consider list construction to be influenced by those who open their spam and read their spam and believe their spam and click on links in spam, including those links which are remove links. The vast majority of spammers are very simple in their list managment -- they only add addies, they never remove them or manage them in any way. They don't care if addies bounce, they don't care if addies try to remove, they don't care about anything except spewing spam to as many addresses as possible.Â They aren't paying postage.Â There is no need to remove dead or unwilling or any other kind of address. There are very very few spammers who go to the trouble of removing 'anti-s', but it occasionally does happen.Â Some antispammers cause spammers enough 'trouble' one way or another that the spammer would rather that those anti-s be removed from the list so they won't cause as much problem. There are even fewer spammers who would be inclined to try to retaliate against an anti- by some kind of revenge attack, which is another matter. So, we have spammers and spammers and spammers -- then we have mungers and mungers and mungers. There is no mungeing.Â There is 'simple' spamcop mungeing.Â Then there is uber-mungeing - in which there is additional mungeing beyond what SC performs - then uber-uber-mungeing which is beyond what SC permits -- then uber-alles-mungeing in which the mungeing is beyond all reason, rendering the 'evidence' relatively worthless to many abuse desks, some of whom won't even accept SC standard mungeing. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin Thanks Mike! Edit: 2005/10/04 22:00 Jeff G. rewrapped the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.