🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mike Ruddock" <mike@ruddock50.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
>
> Message to Mr Nuncius. Have you changed your email address
> lately? I sent you an email a few days ago and only today have I been
> told that it bounced.

Ooo er!  Nope, same old address.  Other stuff seems to be getting here OK.
Would you like to try again?

> At the same time as that message I received three other
> messages about bounced emails. These were worded differently and were
> to addresses I have never heard of. I assume that this is coincidence,
> or has Mr Nuncius become involved in a new groups of phishers? ITWSBT

You think I'm an aphishionado?  How dare you, sir!
--
Sid
Make sure Matron is away when you reply

 Mike Ruddock <mike@ruddock50.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>	Message to Mr Nuncius. [snip]
>
>	At the same time as that message I received three other
>messages about bounced emails. These were worded differently and were
>to addresses I have never heard of. I assume that this is coincidence,
>or has Mr Nuncius become involved in a new groups of phishers? ITWSBT

some of our addresses were getting thousands of those per hour,
peaking on christmas day.  i had a _super_ time that day (perhaps
umrats can understand why people in my position tend not to find
*anything* spammers do in the least bit amusing).

it's not (afaict) phishers, but spammers using your address (typically
with some completely other name) to send their slime to their list of
"validated" addresses.  if i look at our logs, i see whole minutes,
sometimes, when the only thing happening is we reject thousands of
offers of mail to addresses which have never existed here: and some of
these message rejections will appear as bounces in some poor sap's
mailbox.

the spammers really are trying to destroy the internet as we know it.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

On 13 Jan 2006 21:58:47 GMT, rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:

>
>some of our addresses were getting thousands of those per hour,
>peaking on christmas day.  i had a _super_ time that day (perhaps
>umrats can understand why people in my position tend not to find
>*anything* spammers do in the least bit amusing).

I sometimes get thousands an hour just to my own domain. I find that
seeing some amusement in spammers is absolutely essential.

--
Cheers, Kimbo (Keeper of the Languid Wave (tm))
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/

www.bykimbo.com

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:13:26 +0000, Mike Ruddock
<mike@ruddock50.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> I assume that this is coincidence,
>or has Mr Nuncius become involved in a new groups of phishers? ITWSBT
>
Ooooh nooooo, I feel a pun thread coming on.

<fx: heads for bed>

--
Jo

Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers, Jo
Lonergan said ...
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:13:26 +0000, Mike Ruddock
> <mike@ruddock50.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I assume that this is coincidence,
> >or has Mr Nuncius become involved in a new groups of phishers? ITWSBT
> >
> Ooooh nooooo, I feel a pun thread coming on.
>
> <fx: heads for bed>
>
>
I can see the next BBQ tuit.  umra, home of the phish pun.
--
Fenny

Giles:  I assume there is a perfectly reasonable and not at all insane
explanation.

In article <72ags1hon95q2uu3iv4n86il4c01da4esm@4ax.com>,
jolonergan@hotmail.com says...
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:13:26 +0000, Mike Ruddock
> <mike@ruddock50.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I assume that this is coincidence,
> >or has Mr Nuncius become involved in a new groups of phishers? ITWSBT
> >
> Ooooh nooooo, I feel a pun thread coming on.
>
> <fx: heads for bed>
>
>
And what if it comes up Tails?

ITWSBT

Sam
(That wasn't a dirty crack, it was a phisher.)

On 13 Jan 2006 21:58:47 GMT, rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:

> Mike Ruddock <mike@ruddock50.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>>	Message to Mr Nuncius. [snip]
>>
>>	At the same time as that message I received three other
>>messages about bounced emails. These were worded differently and were
>>to addresses I have never heard of. I assume that this is coincidence,
>>or has Mr Nuncius become involved in a new groups of phishers? ITWSBT
>
>some of our addresses were getting thousands of those per hour,
>peaking on christmas day.  i had a _super_ time that day (perhaps
>umrats can understand why people in my position tend not to find
>*anything* spammers do in the least bit amusing).

At least you get paid for it.  I'm doing this as displacement activity
from cialis-spammer-proofing the guestbook on my website.

One day someone with a touch less self control than me is going to do
something very nasty to one of these scum.   And I'm going to cheer when
they do it.

>the spammers really are trying to destroy the internet as we know it.

Yes.  Having wrecked mail and newsgroups they are now after websites as
well.   Are they sponsored by Murdoch I wonder.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:40:11 +0000, Nick Atty
<nospam@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Yes.  Having wrecked mail and newsgroups they are now after websites as
>well.   Are they sponsored by Murdoch I wonder.

For what value of wrecked? Certainly one of my email addresses is much
harder to use than it need be, which hacks me off no end, but even
that one isn't *wrecked* yet (though it might get there). The others
are all easily manageble. And this newsgroup is <touch wood> pretty
healthy. As are the others I regularly use.

I loathe spammers as utter scum, and will be buying the next ticket
after you to watch somebody do something hideous to them, but let's
not grant them more power than they have, and let's not scaremonger,
eh wot?


--
Cheers, Kimbo (Keeper of the Languid Wave (tm))
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/

www.bykimbo.com

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:51:10 +0000, Kim Andrews <somerat@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:40:11 +0000, Nick Atty
><nospam@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes.  Having wrecked mail and newsgroups they are now after websites as
>>well.   Are they sponsored by Murdoch I wonder.
>
>For what value of wrecked? Certainly one of my email addresses is much
>harder to use than it need be, which hacks me off no end, but even
>that one isn't *wrecked* yet (though it might get there). The others
>are all easily manageble. And this newsgroup is <touch wood> pretty
>healthy. As are the others I regularly use.

Well for email, it's fine if you only ever share your email address with
people who know you.   Which is nice for those who just want to send
letters to each other (as it where).

But try putting an email address on a web site.   So that, for example,
people can tell you what it's like.

Then point that address at a black-hole and never use it again.  It will
be so swamped with crap as to be unusable for ever and ever and ever
after just a couple of days.

So you end up writing scripts on the website so people can email you.
This works.  But it means that you are spending time and effort and
hardware and software on defeating the spammers (ie, in restoring the
status quo) rather than in adding new stuff that actually benefits
anyone.

It's like never being able to repair your roof because you are spending
every day cleaning the graffiti off your front wall.

>I loathe spammers as utter scum, and will be buying the next ticket
>after you to watch somebody do something hideous to them, but let's
>not grant them more power than they have, and let's not scaremonger,
>eh wot?

Not scaremongering I hope.   Just (particularly) depressed.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

Nick Atty <nospam@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:codls15c6f2g0br06gn8vvjlialag0t8kp@4ax.com:

> Well for email, it's fine if you only ever share your email address
with
> people who know you.   Which is nice for those who just want to send
> letters to each other (as it where).

Until one of them gets a virus or some other malware that uploads their
address book to spam central.

> But try putting an email address on a web site.   So that, for example,
> people can tell you what it's like.

Curiously, the address I publish on my website seems to be the only one I
have that does not get spam sent to it. That might be because it's
"webmaster@..." or it might be because of the mild obfuscation I've used.
(The email address looks and works as it should, but does not contain the
actual @ character.)
--
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

In article <codls15c6f2g0br06gn8vvjlialag0t8kp@4ax.com>,
Nick Atty  <nospam@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Well for email, it's fine if you only ever share your email address with
>people who know you.   Which is nice for those who just want to send
>letters to each other (as it where).
>
>But try putting an email address on a web site.   So that, for example,
>people can tell you what it's like.
>
>Then point that address at a black-hole and never use it again.  It will
>be so swamped with crap as to be unusable for ever and ever and ever
>after just a couple of days.

Mine's been on my website for five years.  I'm getting 30 spams per
day at the moment, up from about 3 per day when the address was wholly
new.  Spamassassin makes sure I never see them, it's hardly 'wrecked'.
Admittedly I've not been posting on Usenet that widely for the last few
years: I do know people who take a more active part in antispam who get
thousands of spams per day.

In my experience, just putting your address on your website isn't a big
risk.  Corresponding with people, however trustworthy, who let viruses
in is probably much riskier - the virus will trawl their machine as
it's a good source of 'live' email addresses.  Also posting on Usenet,
although uk.* seems fairly safe (if my 30 spams per day count as safe !)

Nick
--
So when is Tony Blair going to start treating *us* with respect ?

 Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> writes:
>Nick Atty <nospam@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well for email, it's fine if you only ever share your email address
>> with people who know you.   Which is nice for those who just want
>> to send letters to each other (as it were).
>
>Until one of them gets a virus or some other malware that uploads their
>address book to spam central.

i've had my present address (more or less) since the mid-80s.  some of
the addresses i supposedly get spam from (the great and the good in my
areas of work) are really pretty amazing.

>> But try putting an email address on a web site.   So that, for example,
>> people can tell you what it's like.
>
>Curiously, the address I publish on my website seems to be the only one I
>have that does not get spam sent to it. That might be because it's
>"webmaster@..." or it might be because of the mild obfuscation I've used.
>(The email address looks and works as it should, but does not contain the
>actual @ character.)

you mean, it's not an href='mail:...'?

to first order, spam address fishing doesn't bother unless it's a real
address on view, or in the link.

otoh, since i started watching the mail queues here, i started to
realise there's an awful lot of hit&miss involved in spamming.  for
example, our exciting christmas day event (when a spam flood was faked
as coming from three addresses in my domain) was a problem for us
because of the huge amount of spam sent out that simply bounced back
to the (non-)sender[*].  and of course, if i look at the dynamic logs,
i'll see our system rejecting far more mail than it accepts, simply
because it's directed at ludicrously incorrect addresses.

someone here said, you need to laugh at them as otherwise you would go
mad.  for me, these people have created a mechanism whereby, at no
significant effort on their part, they create a lot of hard work for
me: so i find it difficult to do anything other than hate them.

[*] two defunct addresses for which we were still (anomalously)
forwarding and one internal address which is used for routing.
fortunately i could delete them all (the routing one by inventing a
different internal address).
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:59:32 +0000, Nick Atty
<nospam@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>>For what value of wrecked? Certainly one of my email addresses is much
>>harder to use than it need be, which hacks me off no end, but even
>>that one isn't *wrecked* yet (though it might get there). The others
>>are all easily manageble. And this newsgroup is <touch wood> pretty
>>healthy. As are the others I regularly use.
>
>Well for email, it's fine if you only ever share your email address with
>people who know you.   Which is nice for those who just want to send
>letters to each other (as it where).
>
>But try putting an email address on a web site.   So that, for example,
>people can tell you what it's like.

I have. Hence the "one of my email addresses" etc up there. I get
several thousand spam a day to that one. So I do empathise with your
complaint, I just don't accept the bastards have ground us down yet!

--
Cheers, Kimbo (Keeper of the Languid Wave (tm))
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/

www.bykimbo.com

On 15 Jan 2006 22:49:24 GMT, rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:

>
>someone here said, you need to laugh at them as otherwise you would go
>mad.  for me, these people have created a mechanism whereby, at no
>significant effort on their part, they create a lot of hard work for
>me: so i find it difficult to do anything other than hate them.

That, roughly paraphrased, was me. And I find it entirely possible to
hate them while extracting what little entertainment I can from the
situation. Laughing at people you despise is hardly a new idea!

--
Cheers, Kimbo (Keeper of the Languid Wave (tm))
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/

www.bykimbo.com

According to the opalescent prose of Kim Andrews <somerat@hotmail.com>
:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:59:32 +0000, Nick Atty
><nospam@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>For what value of wrecked? Certainly one of my email addresses is much
>>>harder to use than it need be, which hacks me off no end, but even
>>>that one isn't *wrecked* yet (though it might get there). The others
>>>are all easily manageble. And this newsgroup is <touch wood> pretty
>>>healthy. As are the others I regularly use.
>>
>>Well for email, it's fine if you only ever share your email address with
>>people who know you.   Which is nice for those who just want to send
>>letters to each other (as it where).
>>
>>But try putting an email address on a web site.   So that, for example,
>>people can tell you what it's like.
>
>I have. Hence the "one of my email addresses" etc up there. I get
>several thousand spam a day to that one. So I do empathise with your
>complaint, I just don't accept the bastards have ground us down yet!

I have an e-mail address on my blog, and it gets negligible quantities
of spam.  Either I am lucky, or my ISP (the ever wonderful Zen) have
highly effective filters.

--
Stephen                     <http://wenlock.blogspot.com/>

Into my heart an air that kills from yon far country blows:
What are those blue remembered hills, what spires, what farms are those?
That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went and cannot come again.

rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote in
news:dqejhk$n7k$2@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk:

>  Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> writes:
>
>>Curiously, the address I publish on my website seems to be the only
>>one I have that does not get spam sent to it. That might be because
>>it's "webmaster@..." or it might be because of the mild obfuscation
>>I've used. (The email address looks and works as it should, but does
>>not contain the actual @ character.)
>
> you mean, it's not an href='mail:...'?

It is an href="mailto:...", but I use %40 instead of @ in the href. It
may be that this munging still attracts spam and my ISP is doing some
good filtering, but spam comes through on my other addresses.
--
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0