[SAtalk] HTTP/URL rules

2002-01-22 Thread Bill Becker
I've noticed a new wave of spam with obfuscated URLs lately. There seem to be a lot of them, and they are getting pretty fancy EG: href="http://www.g%65%6f%63%69t%69es.%63o%6d%2fto%70so%66t%77%253fh%2569%257%34%2e%25%36%33tr%2e%2540%2565s.g%65%6f%256%33i%2574%256%39%256%35%2573.%25%36%33om%252f

Re: [SAtalk] NO_MX_FOR_FROM reasoning?

2002-02-01 Thread Bill Becker
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, peter green wrote: > What is the purpose of the NO_MX_FOR_FROM test? It can check for a forged > from, true... but wouldn't it make as much (or more) sense to test the > envelope sender for MX, since that's where bounces might go? The envelope domain in a spam is usually fo

[SAtalk] spam repositories?

2002-02-28 Thread Bill Becker
I see that a lot of people on the list have carefully enshrined their spam into repositories, and this turns out to be a great thing for when you want to test rules. Are there any collections out there available for download? Note that, i don't need the headers because i can autogenerate them.

Re: [SAtalk] A better alternative to test ROUND_THE_WORLD]

2002-03-05 Thread Bill Becker
People should be allowed to not-read or not-receive any or all of their email. Period. It doesn't matter whether it's because they are xenophobic morons, or because they don't know anyone outside the US -- It doesn't matter because it's their mail and their spool. On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Rob McMil

Re: [SAtalk] Freedom of Press / Speech / Junk Mail (yah right)

2002-03-26 Thread Bill Becker
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Smith, Rick wrote: > How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same > consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ? Forever, plus one day. > > I'm sure that some lawyer out there could find a way to sue someone for > running this package. > > > __

Re: [SAtalk] Freedom of Press / Speech / Junk Mail (yah right)

2002-03-26 Thread Bill Becker
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > Personally, I'm wondering when/if spammers have sued their ISPs for > having an AUP that disallows spam. They could do that only with an inept ISP. Most US ISP agreements will say somewhere that either party can terminate the agreement at any time

Re: [SAtalk] Freedom of Press / Speech / Junk Mail (yah right)

2002-03-27 Thread Bill Becker
If a spammer sues you it will probably be in a US federal court. You will need an attorney who is going bill you at hundreds of dollars per hour whether you win or lose. It could take years to resolve. I seriously doubt whether any attorney would defend you with the understanding that he'll g

Re: [SAtalk] Freedom of Press / Speech / Junk Mail (yah right)

2002-03-28 Thread Bill Becker
e practice. Whether the spammer could win is academic. The cost of defending against a suit in US federal court is very high. Bill On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 the voices made Bill Becker write: > > > If a spammer sues you it will probably be

[SAtalk] Obfuscation escalation

2002-06-14 Thread Bill Becker
We may need expanded rules to handle obfuscation. The following javascript decodes into another obfuscation javasscript. I didn't have time to persue it further (what the sender is counting on i suppose)... Subscribe for Daily Amateurs for FREE!!!