🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <see-2112971759200001@ids.vip.best.com>, see@my.sig (Kevin) wrote:

> >I ditched it months ago in favor of the "legitimate address"
> >filter....much simpler, filters faster, and seems to be just as effective.
> >I used to take the time to contact all the postmasters, but I gave up.
> 
> Automate the process.  I wrote a perl script called 'yell' that complains
> automatically - point a spam at it, and *grind* *slash*.   The next
> generation of it, "Rebel Yell", will even browse the spammer's Web page
> and warn everyone he links to that the page's owner is spamming.  
> This really screws up the spammers!!!   I've watched LinkExchange banners
> vanish off Web pages as a result of my complaints. 
> 
> Unfortunately 'yell' is in perl and relies on Unix tools like 'mail'.
> Mac users with perl can get some functionality out of it if they also
> have a unix shell account, but point-and-click it is not. 

The SPAMers have gotten very clever about spoofs, during my tries at it
manually, it turns only the postmasters could track it down. Just when I
thought I had which address was the right one figured out, it would turn
aout to be somewhere else in the header. This is why the AppleScript
automation never worked for me, I think...about 2 out of every 10
postmasters it whined to, I'd get a letter back saying "it wasn't us, it
was <insert ISP here>"

> >And as much as I hate to do it, I found that my "expanded e-mail address"
> >signature combined with a fake return address has cut-down considerably on
> >the SPAM I receive (that, and dropping my AOL accounts...used to get 25-75
> >messages of SPAM a week there!).
> 
> It is unfortunate that spamblocking works.  I no longer write private
> replies to people on Usenet, because of spamblocking.  A lot of people
> use a real-sounding e-mail address, and don't tell you it's fake.  
> I don't like sending mail into black holes.  

I can't blame you, and I know it is a practice deplored by the original
Usenet geeks, but I can see no other choice. Some of these mangled e-mail
addresses are harder to decrypt than others ("please remove the ____ from
my e-mail address"), I just set mine up so you can "read" the address
aloud and get the typed addy.  ;)

The e-mail address given as "reply to" is obviosly faked to anyone paying
attention.  :)

> The reason you got so much spam on AOL is because you have a profile. 
> Spammers do profile searches and then harvest the names.  There are 
> many commercial programs to do this automatically.  So don't have one! 

I had little choice for a long time.  =)

> >I've about as 'bot-proofed my identity as I can.  :)
> 
> I refuse to hide under a rock.  However I have a Big F*cking Gun and a 
> whole lot of attitude.  So spamming me would be a mistake. 

Your gun works, mine kept misfiring. I'm not hiding under a rock, I'm
carrying an active jammer.  :)   If folks *really* need to talk to me, I
haven't made it *that* difficult to do so.

=)

A question for the group:

I am using Newswatcher 2.3.5.  I am told I can set up filters, and if I do
this right, SPAM can be ashcanned and I never see it.

Haven't bothered yet, but if I was to watch the postings and analyse them
for a while, couldn't I use thei filtering to remove a lot of spam?  (Has
anyone tried this?)

Also, I read in a MAC mag recently that the ANTISPAM string you enter in
your address to try to foil these people (Is this why there should be laws
to prevent lawyers mating with drug dealers?  So we get no more spamming
arseholes?), you should use a combination of letters and numbers, and
avoid the obviuopus - which I have not done yet, obviously!

DHR.


kevin at quosig dot com

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
 Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

-- 
wotthehell wotthehell archie wotthehell wotthehell

{Take the 3 *** out of my return address to reply.  My version of a SPAM PILL.}