[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thursday 03 July 2003 12:26, Simon wrote: > The mistake is to try and spoof, all you need do is catch and > use the emails sent to bad addresses, so they look like they > are active addresses, and thus remain in the spammers > database. ... > A) This is rather like painting a target on yourself and > running across the frontline of a virtual battle field. That is why, with respect and IMHO, it isn't a mistake to spoof... thus one produces responses from addresses that never came to one. But I agree with all remarks about the actual feasibility computational and otherwise of doing the spoofing. > B) I don't think that many spammers are using this technique, Those who are using it gain a premium for the lists they develope as a result of the conformations. Attacking that premium by corrupting those lists seems worthwhile if it can be done at small cost to society. > Which is why I try to slow them down in the search for open > relays using spamd. > Still it is worth a try where spammers use URLs with the > recipients "email address" in unencrypted, we could > acknowledge, and or fake these, with a spam trap account to > see if it works. Who knows some might even be valid > unsubscribe URL's. Good show. I think the answers to spam include a wide variety of distributed tachniques each aimed at reducing the profit from it, hence the thought that each piece is worth looking at. -- From the Linux desktops of Dr Adrian Midgley http://www.defoam.net/ -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.