Curious about spam

[rtk]

All smoke and no fire? I know that the names of all posters to ramf are
periodically listed in a pro-spam group such as
Re: Defense Against the Dark Arts 8099
alt.fan.la-radio
a list which includes me, sort of. However, I wonder if this results in
any actual spam being sent to anyone. I'm unable to detect this myself
because I'm using someone else's computer and account for anything on
the internet, so my own is untouched. The account I'm using now goes
through layers of departmental filters so stringent that the user must
submit a new password at least once per day, more if any threat like
hacking is detected. Just curious if this is as innocous as it seems.

Ruth Kazez

[Ct Midnite]

I use spamgourmet.com and make up emails on the fly. The one I made
up for this group and only this group started generating spam in just
3 days. Not a lot but some.

I've discontinued that email address and have a new one with this
group and added (nospam)com after the dot. It seems to have worked
sofar.

I didn't figure this out, I saw other people doing it. I know the bot
harvesters won't deal with it. But an person could.

We'll see what happens.

Ct Midnite


On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:55:19 GMT, rtk > wrote:

>All smoke and no fire? I know that the names of all posters to ramf are
>periodically listed in a pro-spam group such as
>Re: Defense Against the Dark Arts 8099
>alt.fan.la-radio
>a list which includes me, sort of. However, I wonder if this results in
>any actual spam being sent to anyone. I'm unable to detect this myself
>because I'm using someone else's computer and account for anything on
>the internet, so my own is untouched. The account I'm using now goes
>through layers of departmental filters so stringent that the user must
>submit a new password at least once per day, more if any threat like
>hacking is detected. Just curious if this is as innocous as it seems.
>
>Ruth Kazez

[Harald]

I use PopFile and have it trained to recognize SPAM. I don't even see SPAM
anymore, it gets automatically deleted as soon as it comes in.

This is the download page: for POPFile

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=63137

After a month of training, I have not had any false positives anymore.

SPAMmers hate stuff like that. Now, we just have to teach everyone to use a
program like POPFile.

hth

--
Harald
130 g Skimmerless SW Tank
290 lbs/6" DSB
70 lbs LR
3 B/G Chromis, 1 Tomato Clown, 1 Lawnmower Blenny, 1 Flame Angel, 1 Foxface,
1 Blue Regal, 1 Royal Gramma, 1 Cleaner Wrasse, 3 soft corals.


20 gal Skimmerless SW Nano
80 lbs/6" DSB
31 lbs LR,
1 - 3-Striped damsel, 1 Blue Devil, 1 sm. Yellow Tang

[Mort]

"rtk" > wrote in message
et...
> All smoke and no fire? I know that the names of all posters to ramf are
> periodically listed in a pro-spam group such as
> Re: Defense Against the Dark Arts 8099
> alt.fan.la-radio
> a list which includes me, sort of. However, I wonder if this results in
> any actual spam being sent to anyone. I'm unable to detect this myself
> because I'm using someone else's computer and account for anything on
> the internet, so my own is untouched. The account I'm using now goes
> through layers of departmental filters so stringent that the user must
> submit a new password at least once per day, more if any threat like
> hacking is detected. Just curious if this is as innocous as it seems.
>
> Ruth Kazez
>

Hi Ruth, a couple weeks ago I made the mistake of putting my real email
address in my settings. Boy do I regret it. I am getting some spam now and
TONS of emails that are infected with the W32.Swen.A@mm virus. (about 30 a
day)
I dont know if they are connected but the odds seem pretty good to me. =\
HTH

~Mort

[Jamie Rays]

It's usenet people... the more email addresses spammers can get, the more
money they (we) make.

As for your filtering, have you experienced base64 encoding yet? That's how
I spam everyone... unless you really know what you are doing, your filters
can't decode the base64 encoding and only know to accept vs. reject the
mail.

DaTroll

"Mort" > wrote in message
.com...

"rtk" > wrote in message
et...
> All smoke and no fire? I know that the names of all posters to ramf are
> periodically listed in a pro-spam group such as
> Re: Defense Against the Dark Arts 8099
> alt.fan.la-radio
> a list which includes me, sort of. However, I wonder if this results in
> any actual spam being sent to anyone. I'm unable to detect this myself
> because I'm using someone else's computer and account for anything on
> the internet, so my own is untouched. The account I'm using now goes
> through layers of departmental filters so stringent that the user must
> submit a new password at least once per day, more if any threat like
> hacking is detected. Just curious if this is as innocous as it seems.
>
> Ruth Kazez
>

Hi Ruth, a couple weeks ago I made the mistake of putting my real email
address in my settings. Boy do I regret it. I am getting some spam now and
TONS of emails that are infected with the W32.Swen.A@mm virus. (about 30 a
day)
I dont know if they are connected but the odds seem pretty good to me. =\
HTH

~Mort

[rtk]

Jamie Rays wrote:

> It's usenet people... the more email addresses spammers can get, the more
> money they (we) make.
>
> As for your filtering, have you experienced base64 encoding yet? That's how
> I spam everyone... unless you really know what you are doing, your filters
> can't decode the base64 encoding and only know to accept vs. reject the
> mail.

base64 was popular at a certain level in the early 90's. It has been
supplanted by far more sophisticated encoding systems. Yes, I believe
the computer professors responsible for filtering our accounts not only
decoded the various systems; they invented it.

[Jamie Rays]

Base64 decoding is not available in most antispam products of today. I
employ them on my server for my customers, but I can't name an effective
third party service that does the same.

Thanks for the history lesson. MIT didn't teach me those sort of things ;)

"rtk" > wrote in message
et...


Jamie Rays wrote:

> It's usenet people... the more email addresses spammers can get, the more
> money they (we) make.
>
> As for your filtering, have you experienced base64 encoding yet? That's
how
> I spam everyone... unless you really know what you are doing, your filters
> can't decode the base64 encoding and only know to accept vs. reject the
> mail.

base64 was popular at a certain level in the early 90's. It has been
supplanted by far more sophisticated encoding systems. Yes, I believe
the computer professors responsible for filtering our accounts not only
decoded the various systems; they invented it.

[Marco Qualizza]

Well, this is certainly not standard reef fare, but I have to ask...

RTK: I don't understand what you're trying to say. B64 is still used for
all non-text sections of mime-encapsulated messages -- ie/ any attachment
you send via email is B64 encoded. If you're talking about Newsgroups,
there's yEnc, which is fairly new, but hasn't yet supplanted B64, and
*isn't* used in email... How can you claim that it was merely "popular at
a certain level in the early 90's"?

Jamie: "Base64 decoding is not available in most antispam product of
today"... what, are you *totally* off your rocker? Any anti-spam product
that can look in side your message provides Base64 decoding... For
example, any anti-spam tool that can filter HTML spam based on content
can/will provide Base64 decoding...

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:08:21 -0600, Jamie Rays wrote:

> Base64 decoding is not available in most antispam products of today. I
> employ them on my server for my customers, but I can't name an effective
> third party service that does the same.
>
> Thanks for the history lesson. MIT didn't teach me those sort of things ;)
>
> "rtk" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>
> Jamie Rays wrote:
>
>> It's usenet people... the more email addresses spammers can get, the more
>> money they (we) make.
>>
>> As for your filtering, have you experienced base64 encoding yet? That's
> how
>> I spam everyone... unless you really know what you are doing, your filters
>> can't decode the base64 encoding and only know to accept vs. reject the
>> mail.
>
> base64 was popular at a certain level in the early 90's. It has been
> supplanted by far more sophisticated encoding systems. Yes, I believe
> the computer professors responsible for filtering our accounts not only
> decoded the various systems; they invented it.

[Lilly]

Jamie: "Base64 decoding is not available in most antispam product of
today"... what, are you *totally* off your rocker? Any anti-spam product
that can look in side your message provides Base64 decoding... For
example, any anti-spam tool that can filter HTML spam based on content
can/will provide Base64 decoding...


If base64 decoding is allowed by the antispam tool this is true. If the
decoding option is not built into the filter, how in the hell is it going to
work? It won't. Go back to reefing... I'll go back to spamming. It's what I
know best.

DaTroll

[Marco Qualizza]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:43:07 -0600, Lilly wrote:

> If base64 decoding is allowed by the antispam tool this is true. If the
> decoding option is not built into the filter, how in the hell is it going to
> work? It won't. Go back to reefing... I'll go back to spamming. It's what I
> know best.

But, dude, that's the thing -- the decoding will be transparent (no need
to mention it, since it really has no relevance to the user's experience).
What I know best isn't reefing... It's computers. *shrug* I don't eat
quiche.

[Lilly]

Dude!!! No kidding the decoding is transparent, but 99% of the antispam
filters on the retail internet market can't decipher true base64 encoded
emails because they don't include the feature. Base64 is not just html.
Where are you getting your facts? Good thing you aren't a programmer. ( I
know, you are and I am the one in the gutter.)

My antispam product does include true 64 decoders that allows for the filter
to read the email, but I won't be mentioning it here for obvious reasons for
fear of lost sales when the word gets out that you people have my product
installed on your computer. I will say that the product that 80% of you are
using for antispam technology was written by me and my firm and includes
some features that are not public... hence the reason you are probably
getting tons of spam. What a better way to "get out the word" than by
fighting fire with fire. Get the consumer to download an antispam product
that really does work, but also helps us spammers with our multi-million
dollar a year contracts.

Pretty smart for a 12 year old eh?

BTW, you might want to change your email address before a real spammer gets
a hold of it and tests out your filters.

;)




"Marco Qualizza" > wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:43:07 -0600, Lilly wrote:

> If base64 decoding is allowed by the antispam tool this is true. If the
> decoding option is not built into the filter, how in the hell is it going
to
> work? It won't. Go back to reefing... I'll go back to spamming. It's what
I
> know best.

But, dude, that's the thing -- the decoding will be transparent (no need
to mention it, since it really has no relevance to the user's experience).
What I know best isn't reefing... It's computers. *shrug* I don't eat
quiche.

[Marco Qualizza]

Replies inlined.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:56:17 -0600, Lilly wrote:

> Dude!!! No kidding the decoding is transparent, but 99% of the antispam
> filters on the retail internet market can't decipher true base64 encoded

"true" b64? You do realize that that's a bit like saying "a true .png" or
"true .zip compression"... It either is, or it isn't...

> emails because they don't include the feature. Base64 is not just html.
> Where are you getting your facts? Good thing you aren't a programmer. ( I
> know, you are and I am the one in the gutter.)

Well, don't tell anybody, and I can continue getting paid for coding. :-)

>
> My antispam product does include true 64 decoders that allows for the filter

There's that "true" again... Please, what's a "true base64 decoder" as
opposed to a "not-quite-so-true base 64 decoder"?

> to read the email, but I won't be mentioning it here for obvious reasons for
> fear of lost sales when the word gets out that you people have my product
> installed on your computer. I will say that the product that 80% of you are
> using for antispam technology was written by me and my firm and includes
> some features that are not public... hence the reason you are probably
> getting tons of spam. What a better way to "get out the word" than by
> fighting fire with fire. Get the consumer to download an antispam product
> that really does work, but also helps us spammers with our multi-million
> dollar a year contracts.
>
> Pretty smart for a 12 year old eh?

Yes, for a 12 year-old. :-p

>
> BTW, you might want to change your email address before a real spammer gets
> a hold of it and tests out your filters.

*shrug* Let them. I'm not too worried... either because my email client
isn't Outlook (and lacks its vulnerabilities), or because I'm running
Linux, or because I've got antivirus software in place, or because of the
anitvirus software that we have on our mail server, or because of the spam
filters we've got (which I've turned off... spam amuses me), or because,
really, it takes me all of 15 seconds to delete all the spam that I do get... :-)


> ;)
>
>
>
>
> "Marco Qualizza" > wrote in message
> ... On Fri, 28 Nov 2003
> 12:43:07 -0600, Lilly wrote:
>
>> If base64 decoding is allowed by the antispam tool this is true. If the
>> decoding option is not built into the filter, how in the hell is it
>> going
> to
>> work? It won't. Go back to reefing... I'll go back to spamming. It's
>> what
> I
>> know best.
>
> But, dude, that's the thing -- the decoding will be transparent (no need
> to mention it, since it really has no relevance to the user's
> experience). What I know best isn't reefing... It's computers. *shrug*
> I don't eat quiche.