Re: Inger's spam (was: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates)
From: IE_Johansson (inger_e.johansson_at_telia.com)
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: Doug McDonald: "Re: Archaeologists are the real experts - aren't they?"
- Previous message: NeilJackman_at_gmail.com: "Re: Archaeologists are the real experts - aren't they?"
- In reply to: kenney_at_cix.compulink.co.uk: "Re: Inger's spam (was: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates)"
- Next in thread: kenney_at_cix.compulink.co.uk: "Re: Inger's spam (was: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates)"
- Reply: kenney_at_cix.compulink.co.uk: "Re: Inger's spam (was: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:07:30 GMT
<kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:cpho0i$hh2$1@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <%uKud.10822$d5.95613@newsb.telia.net>,
> inger_xe.johansson@telia.xcom (IE_Johansson) wrote:
>
> > Not at all the same as the type of spam you
> > received. Is it?
>
> If that is all the spam you received you are lucky. I am not that
> impressed. You are saying you got 52 spam emails in a week, that much
> gets through my filters in a day.
I know that I am in one sense is lucky.
You also seem to fail to understand
> how spam is sent. Usually it is not directly from the spammer's
> machine or through the spammer's ISP.
I know that this NORMALLY is the case. That's the way it is in one of my
other mailboxes and then most of them are stopped by my filter which I
'ordered' to move them to a file I can read via webmail to check so I don't
miss anything important due to the filter. But I don't fail to understand,
in this case it seems that you don't comprehend the difference between
personal "spam" improviced attack and the ordinary spam attacks. That's what
I have been trying to point to the last year discussing this subject
>Spamming software looks for what
> are called "Open Relays", that is a mailserver that accepts mail from
> off system and will forward it of system and sends through them. It
> will continue to do this until the relay is closed. Good practice is
> for a mailserver to authenticate the poster for addresses to domains
> that are not in the domains served by it. I have to ISP accounts, one
> of which I only use for connectivity. If I send mail via the CIX
> server using the second account I get the following. Mail to
> destinations on CIX is accepted, all mail to other destinations is
> refused with a relaying denied error message.
That's one way to go. Might be better than most. I don't judge.
>
> Now spambots forge "from addresses" which can cause people as much
> hassle as getting spam. Not much fun getting several thousand bounce
> messages. Now you say you have the IP address the spam is being sent
> from. Why have you not used reverse DNS to find the domain and
> complain to the ISP responsible for it?
First complain resulted in the person trying to have my supplier's
postmaster for the news-group discussions to stop me from writing about the
Kensington Runestone and when he finally understood that my supplier
wouldn't accept that I received drog- and medicaladvertisment spam instead,
when he was told by his supplier that he wasn't allowed to do so he tried to
open accounts in my name..... new complain and he sent me Rolex advertisment
'spam' instead. That's the thing I have protested against last time. I also
written to this group. Can you imagin that he at least stopped sending such
spam to my daughter''s mailaddress as soon as I told you all about it.
Anyhow if he tries once more I will forward the ISP and all documentation to
proper authorites in his own country.
Inger E
>
> Whatever else you do, stop whinging on the newsgroup. Scholars are
> supposed to act like scholars not children.
>
> Ken Young
> kenney@cix.co.uk
> Maternity is a matter of fact
> Paternity is a matter of opinion
- Next message: Doug McDonald: "Re: Archaeologists are the real experts - aren't they?"
- Previous message: NeilJackman_at_gmail.com: "Re: Archaeologists are the real experts - aren't they?"
- In reply to: kenney_at_cix.compulink.co.uk: "Re: Inger's spam (was: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates)"
- Next in thread: kenney_at_cix.compulink.co.uk: "Re: Inger's spam (was: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates)"
- Reply: kenney_at_cix.compulink.co.uk: "Re: Inger's spam (was: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|