Way OT: Dealing with SPAM

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
L

Lee_D

Guest
Ok I get spam all the time and use Mailwasher to sort it, getting on for 150
to 250 messages a day but thats to be expected when you have a web site with
email link I guess.

Whats really tit'sing me off at the mo tho is that some of the Spam suggests
it's origionated from one of my email addresses which means I'm also getting
a load of spam from myself and also bounced Spam from others. I've just
looked at the header of one such offending bit of spam and it shows no Abuse
to address but does show a Ip number or some such it origionated from.

Whats my best course of action - preferably involving off roading ... 101
and shovel in your replies ;-) (See I knew it would get on topic some how)

Lee D
--
www.lrproject.com

a.f.l. & 101ers Unofficial October 2006
<http://www.lrproject.com/afl__101_owners_unofficial.htm>

"Anti's - Give
them enough rope and they'll be stuck in a ditch with alot of rope ;-) "


 
In message <[email protected]>
"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ok I get spam all the time and use Mailwasher to sort it, getting on
>for 150 to 250 messages a day but thats to be expected when you have a
>web site with email link I guess.
>
It's not off topic as far as I'm concerned, you have to protect your
Land Rover sites and email addresses from scum sucking robots.

Copy the following MUNGed email (it is your address) address and paste
it into your HTML webpage so that web bots can't pick it up.

<a href="mailto:&#119;&#101;&#098;&#109;&#097;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#064;&#108;&#114;&#112;&#114;&#111;&#106;&#101;&#099;&#116;&#046;&#099;&#111;&#109;">&#119;&#101;&#098;&#109;&#097;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#064;&#108;&#114;&#112;&#114;&#111;&#106;&#101;&#099;&#116;&#046;&#099;&#111;&#109;</a>

Steve.


--
http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk
Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes
Using a British RISC Operating System 100% immune to any Windows virus.
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
 
In article <[email protected]>, Stephen Hull
<[email protected]> writes
>In message <[email protected]>
> "Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ok I get spam all the time and use Mailwasher to sort it, getting on
>>for 150 to 250 messages a day but thats to be expected when you have a
>>web site with email link I guess.
>>
>It's not off topic as far as I'm concerned, you have to protect your
>Land Rover sites and email addresses from scum sucking robots.
>
>Copy the following MUNGed email (it is your address) address and paste
>it into your HTML webpage so that web bots can't pick it up.
>
><a
>href="mailto:&#119;&#101;&#098;&#109;&#097;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#064
>;&#108;&#114;&#112;&#114;&#111;&#106;&#101;&#099;&#116;&#046;&#099;&#111
>;&#109;">&#119;&#101;&#098;&#109;&#097;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#064;&#1
>08;&#114;&#112;&#114;&#111;&#106;&#101;&#099;&#116;&#046;&#099;&#111;&#1
>09;</a>
>


The web bots are onto that sort of thing, and have been for a while.

Going back to Lee's question, try feeding the "bounce" part of the
header into spam cop (spamcop.net) and that will work out the ISP that
the mail originated from. I've been getting 50-200 bounces a day for
two months, and even though the messages are essentially the same, the
ISPs have been all over the world. Until people start to protect their
computers by using firewalls and stop opening attachments on emails,
this will continue to happen.



Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
 
"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ok I get spam all the time and use Mailwasher to sort it, getting on for
> 150 to 250 messages a day but thats to be expected when you have a web
> site with email link I guess.
<snip>
</snip>
> Lee D
> --
> www.lrproject.com
>
> a.f.l. & 101ers Unofficial October 2006
> <http://www.lrproject.com/afl__101_owners_unofficial.htm>
>
> "Anti's - Give
> them enough rope and they'll be stuck in a ditch with alot of rope ;-) "
>
Try http://www.jimcosoftware.com/addins.aspx and scroll down looking for
"Spam Spoiler"
It's free, but it seems to work for me so I made a donation via PayPal to
his children's charity.
It all seems to be above board.
It may take a while before your current spams die out.
It may be of no use if you didn't use FrontPage for your web site.
Joskin.


 
> Going back to Lee's question, try feeding the "bounce" part of the
> header into spam cop (spamcop.net) and that will work out the ISP that
> the mail originated from. I've been getting 50-200 bounces a day for
> two months, and even though the messages are essentially the same, the
> ISPs have been all over the world. Until people start to protect their
> computers by using firewalls and stop opening attachments on emails,
> this will continue to happen.

What has a firewall, or opening attachments got to do with people
sending spam in your name? If I wanted I could send a million e-mails
pretending to be from The President of the United States - I'm
sure he has a firewall, and I doubt he opens attachments! The problem
is that the SMTP e-mail system as it is requires absolutely no
authentication to verify that the person sending the e-mail from
the address they are using is actually authorised to use that e-mail
address. What is required is an entirely new Internet e-mail system.
I believe several systems have been/are being developed.
I haven't kept up with the latest developments, but no doubt the
reason it hasn't been deployed is that no-one can agree a standard.

Matt
 
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:56:39 +0100, Adrian Simpson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> ....
>> Copy the following MUNGed email (it is your address) address and paste
>> it into your HTML webpage so that web bots can't pick it up.
>>
>> <a href="mailto:&#119;&#101;&#098;[...]</a>
>
> The web bots are onto that sort of thing, and have been for a while.

Well in principle I'd agree with your scepticism, but in practice it still
appears to be an effective hinderance.

--
William Tasso

110 V8
 
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:15:55 +0100, Matthew Maddock
<[email protected]> wrote:


> ...
> What has a firewall, or opening attachments got to do with people
> sending spam in your name?

I suspect it's a reference to the number of 'owned' personal workstations.


--
William Tasso

110 V8
 
In message <[email protected]>
Matthew Maddock <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Going back to Lee's question, try feeding the "bounce" part of the
> > header into spam cop (spamcop.net) and that will work out the ISP that
> > the mail originated from. I've been getting 50-200 bounces a day for
> > two months, and even though the messages are essentially the same, the
> > ISPs have been all over the world. Until people start to protect their
> > computers by using firewalls and stop opening attachments on emails,
> > this will continue to happen.
>
> What has a firewall, or opening attachments got to do with people
> sending spam in your name? If I wanted I could send a million e-mails
> pretending to be from The President of the United States - I'm
> sure he has a firewall, and I doubt he opens attachments! The problem
> is that the SMTP e-mail system as it is requires absolutely no
> authentication to verify that the person sending the e-mail from
> the address they are using is actually authorised to use that e-mail
> address. What is required is an entirely new Internet e-mail system.
> I believe several systems have been/are being developed.
> I haven't kept up with the latest developments, but no doubt the
> reason it hasn't been deployed is that no-one can agree a standard.
>
> Matt

Unless an IP address can be closely linked with a mail address,
there is no way of authenticating it - many people use the same
address from many machines, so it never can be. It's possible
that "authenticated" adresses could be handed out, but then the
hackers will just find a way round it.

Richard


--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
On 2006-06-24, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> Unless an IP address can be closely linked with a mail address,
> there is no way of authenticating it

The From: field in an email is useless for authenticating where an
email has come from, however the headers of an email also contain path
information that at least you can use to track down which IP address
it came from. It's practically impossible to fake an IP address for
TCP connections or even UDP if it requires two-way traffic to
establish and run the session, which is why spammers hack people's
machines to send email addresses from them. To help stop that, blocks
of IP addresses used for joe public are often labelled as "dialup"
ranges and published in tables that anti-spam services use as lists of
ranges not to accept mail from. Spam would be much worse without
these measures.

I get very little spam into my inbox, because even Thunderbird's
anti-spam engine is pretty good at getting shot of it. I do check the
trash can regularly though (which is packed with spam) as I found that
my electricity bills were being spam-blocked!

At any rate, linking an email address to an IP address would work less
well than legitimate people using message digests to authenticate the
posts, but that would require a large public-key infrastructure that
worked, and mail clients that stuck to standards properly, none of
which will ever happen.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
In message <[email protected]>
Adrian Simpson <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>The web bots are onto that sort of thing, and have been for a while.

Probably does now, but its better than not having any form of email
protection,

Steve.


--
http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk
Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes
Using a British RISC Operating System 100% immune to any Windows virus.
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
 
In message <[email protected]>
"Joskin" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>It may be of no use if you didn't use FrontPage for your web site.
>Joskin.
>
Frontpage? what an abysmal piece of software that is, last time I used
Frontpage it altered all my neat HTML code unnecessarily and added
additional meaningless HTML.

Steve.


--
http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk
Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes
Using a British RISC Operating System 100% immune to any Windows virus.
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
 
Stephen Hull wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Joskin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>It may be of no use if you didn't use FrontPage for your web site.
>>Joskin.
>>
>
> Frontpage? what an abysmal piece of software that is, last time I used
> Frontpage it altered all my neat HTML code unnecessarily and added
> additional meaningless HTML.
>
> Steve.
>
>
Not as bad as using MS Word. Dreamweaver has a special tool to remove
the crap left in web pages built with it!

Stuart
 
Lee_D wrote:
> Ok I get spam all the time and use Mailwasher to sort it, getting on
> for 150 to 250 messages a day but thats to be expected when you have
> a web site with email link I guess.

I run a bunch of domains from this location and my mail killfile has
nearly 5000 regular expression entries in it and I still get a dozen a so a day
sneaking through.

The dozen isn't had compared with the 4000+ a month that go in the bin.

It was 6000 a day before I removed the catch-all address. There are
clearly just lists of daft_name@mydomain out there.

nigelH


 
In message <[email protected]>
Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:

>Stephen Hull wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>
>> "Joskin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>It may be of no use if you didn't use FrontPage for your web site.
>>>Joskin.
>>>
>>
>> Frontpage? what an abysmal piece of software that is, last time I used
>> Frontpage it altered all my neat HTML code unnecessarily and added
>> additional meaningless HTML.
>>
>> Steve.
>>
>>
>Not as bad as using MS Word. Dreamweaver has a special tool to remove
>the crap left in web pages built with it!
>
>Stuart

I believe Dreamweaver is pretty good, Word is crap, trying to type a
simple letter in Word is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer, It
is far too complicated and when you do something important it always
seems to crash at the most inappropriate time.

Steve.



--
http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk
Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes
Using a British RISC Operating System 100% immune to any Windows virus.
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
 
Stephen Hull wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen Hull wrote:
>>
>>>In message <[email protected]>
>>> "Joskin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It may be of no use if you didn't use FrontPage for your web site.
>>>>Joskin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Frontpage? what an abysmal piece of software that is, last time I used
>>>Frontpage it altered all my neat HTML code unnecessarily and added
>>>additional meaningless HTML.
>>>
>>>Steve.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not as bad as using MS Word. Dreamweaver has a special tool to remove
>>the crap left in web pages built with it!
>>
>>Stuart
>
>
> I believe Dreamweaver is pretty good, Word is crap, trying to type a
> simple letter in Word is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer, It
> is far too complicated and when you do something important it always
> seems to crash at the most inappropriate time.
>
> Steve.
>
>
>
IME, you can replace "MS Word" with "MS anything" in the above
statements (except their games, which are pretty good)

Stuart
 
Stephen Hull <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Joskin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It may be of no use if you didn't use FrontPage for your web site.
>> Joskin.
>>
> Frontpage? what an abysmal piece of software that is, last time I used
> Frontpage it altered all my neat HTML code unnecessarily and added
> additional meaningless HTML.
>
> Steve.

I have to agree , however I get to use the software because it's part of Mrs
D's work. I.e. Free for my use.

I like the user interface but fully agree that the code it generates is ott.
I've done quite a bit of raw HTML on pages at work for specific users of the
works intranet, if I didn't we wouldn't get it. When I was on leave someone
at H.Q. edited the code with frontpage which made it three times longer to
do the same thing, I was a bit fed up with that but hey lifes too short
which is why for my site I use Frontpage until I get something cheaper with
a similar front end.

Lee


 
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:05:50 +0100, Lee_D wrote:

> which is why for my site I use Frontpage until I get something cheaper
> with a similar front end.

Not familar with FP at all but when I was doing stuff in HTML I found
that the Composer part of Mozilla was fairly good. Didn't produce bloated
code and was reasonably standards compliant. It has WYSIWYG, "outline"
and HTML views that you can switch between at will and changes in one are
instantly reflected in the others.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Maddock
<[email protected]> writes
>> Going back to Lee's question, try feeding the "bounce" part of the
>>header into spam cop (spamcop.net) and that will work out the ISP that
>>the mail originated from. I've been getting 50-200 bounces a day for
>>two months, and even though the messages are essentially the same, the
>>ISPs have been all over the world. Until people start to protect
>>their computers by using firewalls and stop opening attachments on
>>emails, this will continue to happen.
>
>What has a firewall, or opening attachments got to do with people
>sending spam in your name? If I wanted I could send a million e-mails
>pretending to be from The President of the United States - I'm
>sure he has a firewall, and I doubt he opens attachments! The problem
>is that the SMTP e-mail system as it is requires absolutely no
>authentication to verify that the person sending the e-mail from
>the address they are using is actually authorised to use that e-mail
>address. What is required is an entirely new Internet e-mail system.
>I believe several systems have been/are being developed.
>I haven't kept up with the latest developments, but no doubt the
>reason it hasn't been deployed is that no-one can agree a standard.
>


Opening attachments can allow trojans onto your machine, allowing it to
become part of a bot net (controlled via ICQ). Firewalls should limit
what comes in and out of your machine, so with a decent firewall set up,
a trojan shouldn't be able to communicate with its owner.

Sure, we call all send millions of mails as POTUS, just as we could as
Matthew Maddock, however anyone looking at the headers would be able to
trace them back to your ISP, who should be able to tie them down to the
customer in question. By using an unwitting third party to originate
the mail, you throw the scent off yourself as the spammer. If (when)
that machine is discovered, well, it was good whilst it lasted, there
are plenty more machines out there to use. A while back I heard that a
new machine going on line could be compromised in as little as 20
minutes.


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Khranok
First timer insurance for Defender with mods.
Replies
15
Views
5K
higgo88
H
L
Two weeks to go!
Replies
10
Views
1K
Nige
N
L
Austin ;-)
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Austin Shackles
A
L
So WTF is Kelmarsh?
Replies
1
Views
626
Nige
N
M
I am so annoyed with your behaviour.
11 12 13
Replies
241
Views
27K
Singvogel
Singvogel
Back
Top