On Tuesday May 02 2006 1:55 am, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > What I don't get is who in his/her right mind would respond to a piece of
>
> spam
>
> > that uses so much obfuscation as to be almost unreadable. But, as they
>
> say,
>
> > if it didn't work nobody would be doing it.
>
> Perhaps spammer's t
> What I don't get is who in his/her right mind would respond to a piece of
spam
> that uses so much obfuscation as to be almost unreadable. But, as they
say,
> if it didn't work nobody would be doing it.
Perhaps spammer's targets are poor enough at grammar and spelling that they
don't realize th
On Saturday April 29 2006 12:44 am, Richard Ozer wrote:
> I've purchased HUNDREDS of fake degrees and I feel much smarter because of
> it!
>
> Serious answer many spammers are probably paid per email. Others
> figure that more retries to a given address will result in a higher
> likelihood of
Igor Chudov wrote:
> Here's something that I do not understand. What is the point of
> spamming people repeatedly not once, twice, or even 10 times, but
> hundreds of times. If I wanted to procure pils, or pgrn, or whatever,
> I would have done it on the first 10 spams. After 100 or so spams,
> wha
I've purchased HUNDREDS of fake degrees and I feel much smarter because of
it!
Serious answer many spammers are probably paid per email. Others figure
that more retries to a given address will result in a higher likelihood of
the mail being read (or read by accident). But you are right..
Ratio's of messages to recipients used to apply: send 100, 10 make it
to live inboxes, 1 gets seen. Then came along filtering: send 1000,
100 get through the spam filters, 10 make it to live inboxes, 1 gets
seen. So they send 1000 variations in the hopes that some make it
through. But wh
Hi,
I fear there are already more zombies than admins ...
It is a good idea to implement some kind of limiting, however, both on senders
and receivers.
Some big ISPs dont take more than ## mails per hour from any other server,
unless the other
one is a biggie too, or there is mutual agreement.
L
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, mouss wrote:
Roger Taranto a écrit :
If it didn't tie up sockets on our machines, it seems like instead of
rejecting the mail, we should just hold on to the mail connection for as
long as possible. It wouldn't take too long to tie up all of their
outbound connections an
Magnus Holmgren wrote on Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:04:06 +0100:
> Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
> end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
They do not care at all, at least not those which make up for the majority
of spam. They don't even ca
> I would vote that these "legitimate mailing list" are not so
> legitimate if they can't clean up bounces after several years of
> getting them.
Legitimate != well-run.
--
Dave Pooser
Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
"In our family, happy usually involves gunfire and at least
two patrol cars
At 04:09 PM 11/18/2005, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Kelson wrote:
incoming mail. I turned them back on, unsubscribed from everything
for a few months to weed out any legitimate mailing lists that the
old users might have subscribed to, and eventually turned them into
spam
On Nov 17, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Kelson wrote:
incoming mail. I turned them back on, unsubscribed from everything
for a few months to weed out any legitimate mailing lists that the
old users might have subscribed to, and eventually turned them into
spam
I would vote that these "ligitimate m
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin" wrote:
> Three firewall rules I think nobody should live without:
>
> 1) ipfw add 500 allow tcp from any to me 25 limit src-addr 2 setup
>
> Yup, you read that right. Limits tcp connections to no more than two
> per connecting address. You could probably even drop th
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 11:55, Christian Recktenwald wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 11:42:44AM -0800, John Woolsey wrote:
> > It would be an interesting addition to a honeypot. Make the mail server
> > just hang up and not respond to tie up connections on the spammer.
>
> There's a cool piece of s
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, mouss wrote:
Three firewall rules I think nobody should live without:
1) ipfw add 500 allow tcp from any to me 25 limit src-addr 2 setup
Yup, you read that right. Limits tcp connections to no more than two per
connecting address. You could probably even drop that to one.
From: "Kelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Question: Is there any knowledge as to how spammers deal with different
kinds of failure? Does it matter if I reject the RCPT command or the
MAIL command, or even drop the connection right away
I'm sure it depends on the spammer, but a
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 11:42:44AM -0800, John Woolsey wrote:
> It would be an interesting addition to a honeypot. Make the mail server
> just hang up and not respond to tie up connections on the spammer.
There's a cool piece of software holding tcp connections
alive as long as possible called "la
Roger Taranto a écrit :
If it didn't tie up sockets on our machines, it seems like instead of
rejecting the mail, we should just hold on to the mail connection for as
long as possible. It wouldn't take too long to tie up all of their
outbound connections and back up their mail server. Unfortu
Roger Taranto wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:17, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>>
>>>Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
>>>end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
>>
>>No, they don't have to clean it.
>
>
> If it didn't
It would be an interesting addition to a honeypot. Make the mail server just
hang up and not respond to tie up connections on the spammer.
- bfn - JAW
-- Original Message --
From: Roger Taranto <[EMAIL PROT
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:17, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
> > end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
>
> No, they don't have to clean it.
If it didn't tie up sockets on our machines, it
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Question: Is there any knowledge as to how spammers deal with different
kinds of failure? Does it matter if I reject the RCPT command or the
MAIL command, or even drop the connection right away
I'm sure it depends on the spammer, but a while back I started looking
at the
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
> end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
No, they don't have to clean it.
Let's face it.. spammers are currently making extensive use of dictionary
attacks to add more addresses to
23 matches
Mail list logo
