c++.chat - SPAM
- Jan Knepper (6/6) Nov 27 2003 Any one interested in some real bad statistics?!
- Walter (3/9) Nov 27 2003 What's reverse DNS blocking?
- Jan Knepper (31/47) Nov 28 2003 Reverse DNS blocking is the first level of SPAM blocking. It prevents
- Walter (8/55) Nov 28 2003 Ok, I understand. I had thought that very little spam came from a valid
- Jan Knepper (18/24) Nov 28 2003 The trick is that spammers these days use domains like yahoo.com for
- John Reimer (13/47) Nov 28 2003 This is so insidious! I was talking to my brother the other day, and we...
- KarL (7/14) Nov 30 2003 Because some people believe this is "working from home". Helping a
- KarL (3/6) Nov 30 2003 Oops, forgot the URL:
- Matthew Wilson (5/15) Nov 30 2003 I wish there was some way we could get in a room with them. I really do!
- Walter (3/6) Nov 28 2003 I don't understand why some of this isn't blocked at the backbone level.
- Cesar Rabak (6/17) Nov 28 2003 While the backbone gets paid by the otherwise 'wasted' bandwidth. . .
Any one interested in some real bad statistics?! Check this!!! http://www.digitaldaemon.com/Internet%20Services/blocked_email.html -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Nov 27 2003
What's reverse DNS blocking? "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bq5muh$21lk$1 digitaldaemon.com...Any one interested in some real bad statistics?! Check this!!! http://www.digitaldaemon.com/Internet%20Services/blocked_email.html -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Nov 27 2003
Reverse DNS blocking is the first level of SPAM blocking. It prevents the SPAM from actually being sent to the SMTP server(s) 1. Reporting/Registration: - Some one report SPAM at www.spamcop.net for instance. - Spamcop.net analyses the email and finds out where it comes from (IP address). - The IP address is than added to bl.spamcop.net (http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml) 2. Using: - The SMTP server(s) here are wrapped in rblsmtpd. - When a connection is made to smtp.digitalmars.com:25 (for delivery of email) rblsmtpd is being activated and rblsmtpd check with bl.spamcop.net, list.dsbl.org and relays.ordb.org if the connecting IP address is reported as SPAMMER. - If the connecting IP address is reported as SPAMMER the SMTP connection is denied, otherwise the connecting is accepted and the actual email is being received my the SMTP server. CHKUSR is the second level of SPAM blocking. It prevents email to non-existent email addresses from making it to webmaster or postmaster the domains. Once rblsmtpd fires up qmail-smtpd (the actual SMTP) server, qmail-smtpd checks the email headers for valid "From:" and "To:" headers. The "From:" domain has to exist and accept email. The "To:" email address has to exist. If there is something wrong with either an error is returned to the sender. Thanks! Jan Walter wrote:What's reverse DNS blocking? "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bq5muh$21lk$1 digitaldaemon.com...-- ManiaC++ Jan KnepperAny one interested in some real bad statistics?! Check this!!! http://www.digitaldaemon.com/Internet%20Services/blocked_email.html -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Nov 28 2003
Ok, I understand. I had thought that very little spam came from a valid domain, so by checking to see if the domain existed or not, one could block spam without needing blacklists. That's what I thought reverse DNS lookup was. That looks like what chkusr is, though. From the volumes being blocked, it's pretty clear that email is getting to be unusuable without some sort of blocking. "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bq7ot7$2470$1 digitaldaemon.com...Reverse DNS blocking is the first level of SPAM blocking. It prevents the SPAM from actually being sent to the SMTP server(s) 1. Reporting/Registration: - Some one report SPAM at www.spamcop.net for instance. - Spamcop.net analyses the email and finds out where it comes from (IP address). - The IP address is than added to bl.spamcop.net (http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml) 2. Using: - The SMTP server(s) here are wrapped in rblsmtpd. - When a connection is made to smtp.digitalmars.com:25 (for delivery of email) rblsmtpd is being activated and rblsmtpd check with bl.spamcop.net, list.dsbl.org and relays.ordb.org if the connecting IP address is reported as SPAMMER. - If the connecting IP address is reported as SPAMMER the SMTP connection is denied, otherwise the connecting is accepted and the actual email is being received my the SMTP server. CHKUSR is the second level of SPAM blocking. It prevents email to non-existent email addresses from making it to webmaster or postmaster the domains. Once rblsmtpd fires up qmail-smtpd (the actual SMTP) server, qmail-smtpd checks the email headers for valid "From:" and "To:" headers. The "From:" domain has to exist and accept email. The "To:" email address has to exist. If there is something wrong with either an error is returned to the sender. Thanks! Jan Walter wrote:What's reverse DNS blocking? "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bq5muh$21lk$1 digitaldaemon.com...-- ManiaC++ Jan KnepperAny one interested in some real bad statistics?! Check this!!! http://www.digitaldaemon.com/Internet%20Services/blocked_email.html -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Nov 28 2003
Walter wrote:Ok, I understand. I had thought that very little spam came from a valid domain, so by checking to see if the domain existed or not, one could block spam without needing blacklists. That's what I thought reverse DNS lookup was. That looks like what chkusr is, though.The trick is that spammers these days use domains like yahoo.com for instance as 'fake' "From:" domain. Although the account yahoo.com does not exist, this SPAM would still come through the system, yet reverse DNS indeed might block these once reported as they most likely would not come from an IP address associated with yahoo.com. Than they also setup domains, just for the purpose of spamming... Domains that for the period of the SPAM being processed are actually on the internet... <sigh> chkusr only checks for existence of *local* email addresses, i.e. "To:" email addresses digitalmars.com, smartsoft.us, etc.From the volumes being blocked, it's pretty clear that email is getting to be unusuable without some sort of blocking.Yes, it's definitely becomming unusuable. Blocking helps some, but realized that the bandwith required for the email and for the blocking to work is becoming serious. Jan -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Nov 28 2003
Jan Knepper wrote:Walter wrote:This is so insidious! I was talking to my brother the other day, and we just couldn't fathom how spammers could be so tenaciously pushy. They are sending spam to millions of people who wouldn't in a million years buy their products. But they'll do anything to force these people get the mail. I jsut don't understand this. It must be a virus-makers mentality or something. I REALLY wish these people could be held accountable for their actions. Excuse my rant! But I can't stand it! :-) Oh and thanks Jan. That was informative. You're doing a great job protecting us from that insanity. Later, JohnOk, I understand. I had thought that very little spam came from a valid domain, so by checking to see if the domain existed or not, one could block spam without needing blacklists. That's what I thought reverse DNS lookup was. That looks like what chkusr is, though.The trick is that spammers these days use domains like yahoo.com for instance as 'fake' "From:" domain. Although the account yahoo.com does not exist, this SPAM would still come through the system, yet reverse DNS indeed might block these once reported as they most likely would not come from an IP address associated with yahoo.com. Than they also setup domains, just for the purpose of spamming... Domains that for the period of the SPAM being processed are actually on the internet... <sigh> chkusr only checks for existence of *local* email addresses, i.e. "To:" email addresses digitalmars.com, smartsoft.us, etc.From the volumes being blocked, it's pretty clear that email is getting to be unusuable without some sort of blocking.Yes, it's definitely becomming unusuable. Blocking helps some, but realized that the bandwith required for the email and for the blocking to work is becoming serious. Jan
Nov 28 2003
This is so insidious! I was talking to my brother the other day, and we just couldn't fathom how spammers could be so tenaciously pushy. They are sending spam to millions of people who wouldn't in a million years buy their products. But they'll do anything to force these people get the mail. I jsut don't understand this. It must be a virus-makers mentality or something. I REALLY wish these people could be held accountable for their actions.Because some people believe this is "working from home". Helping a "genuine" company in their promotion. This way, they (housewives, mentally challenged unemployed) effective become spammers and the real crook can get away. Just like in Australia - one guy who just got caught by "Give $14,500 and I will teach you how to become rich by buying a $400,000 apartment from me". Go figure.
Nov 30 2003
"KarL" <karl kimay.net> "KarL" <karl kimay.net> wrote in message news:bqdub7$1mdi$1 digitaldaemon.com...Just like in Australia - one guy who just got caught by "Give $14,500 and I will teach you how to become rich by buying a $400,000 apartment from me". Go figure.Oops, forgot the URL: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/28/1069825986592.html?from=storyrhs
Nov 30 2003
This is so insidious! I was talking to my brother the other day, and we just couldn't fathom how spammers could be so tenaciously pushy. They are sending spam to millions of people who wouldn't in a million years buy their products. But they'll do anything to force these people get the mail. I jsut don't understand this. It must be a virus-makers mentality or something. I REALLY wish these people could be held accountable for their actions. Excuse my rant! But I can't stand it! :-) Oh and thanks Jan. That was informative. You're doing a great job protecting us from that insanity.I wish there was some way we could get in a room with them. I really do! (I can't say what I'd really like to happen, as it'll no doubt be used in some court case in the future when I totally lose it and write some abusive email to the spammers, and then end up in the US supreme court guilty of everything you could shake a stick at.)
Nov 30 2003
Matthew Wilson a écrit :Hi, There was an interesting discussion here last June called "interesting spam trap". It ended with the conclusion that the way that was sugested to fight spam doesn't work unless the whole internet melt down ... Well IMO measure will be taken before it completely melt down and may be it could be interesting to have a new look in this discussion ? rolandThis is so insidious! I was talking to my brother the other day, and we just couldn't fathom how spammers could be so tenaciously pushy. They are sending spam to millions of people who wouldn't in a million years buy their products. But they'll do anything to force these people get the mail. I jsut don't understand this. It must be a virus-makers mentality or something. I REALLY wish these people could be held accountable for their actions. Excuse my rant! But I can't stand it! :-) Oh and thanks Jan. That was informative. You're doing a great job protecting us from that insanity.I wish there was some way we could get in a room with them. I really do! (I can't say what I'd really like to happen, as it'll no doubt be used in some court case in the future when I totally lose it and write some abusive email to the spammers, and then end up in the US supreme court guilty of everything you could shake a stick at.)
Dec 01 2003
"roland" <--rv ronetech.com> wrote in message news:bqf1sn$7o4$1 digitaldaemon.com...There was an interesting discussion here last June called "interesting spam trap". It ended with the conclusion that the way that was sugested to fight spam doesn't work unless the whole internet melt down ... Well IMO measure will be taken before it completely melt down and may be it could be interesting to have a new look in this discussion ?The problem is simply the fault of SMTP! If the mail transport protocol is enhanced (yes, they did, but....) to prevent SPAM, then OK. However, SMTP is like your own mailbox at home. Everyman and his dog can stuff thing into it if you don't stay watch over it. Hence this is the situation. The only difference is the post office can only "relay" if you attach a stamp. Junk "mail" does not have stamp - only poor suckers who will "work" for $5 for to stuff 1000 junk mail into letter boxes will do it. Similarly, you will always have poor suckers who think that they can "work at home" emailing 100,000 people and get paid $5 for the work, so they repeatedly SPAM people. Real spammer don't spam themselves. They find some poor soul to do it - or sell CD's of email addresses. You and I who owns a domain or two need a legitimate contact which can be collected by whois! I tried that - registered a new domain with a new email address and only one day later, that email starts getting SPAM! My $0.05
Dec 01 2003
"KarL" <karl kimay.net> wrote in message news:bqgi5j$2g5v$1 digitaldaemon.com...If the mail transport protocol is enhanced (yes, they did, but....) to prevent SPAM, then OK. However, SMTP is like your own mailbox at home. Everyman and his dog can stuff thing into it if you don't stay watch over it. Hence this is the situation.The problem caused by spam is characterized by economists as "the tragedy of the commons." Essentially, the cost of spam is not born by the sender, so it is abused. The only solution that has a prayer of working is to make sending emails cost money. I wrote a brief essay on it: www.walterbright.com/spam.html
Dec 01 2003
Walter a écrit :The problem caused by spam is characterized by economists as "the tragedy of the commons." Essentially, the cost of spam is not born by the sender, so it is abused. The only solution that has a prayer of working is to make sending emails cost money. I wrote a brief essay on it: www.walterbright.com/spam.htmlThat's a smart text and IMO the best solution. The trouble is that it doesn't come "naturally" and need a kind of political will to be implemented. May be for that there must be some intermediate step so that everybody realize the need of it. Here is a sumarize of the "interesting spam trap" thread at least as I understood it. There http://www.unclebobsuncle.com/antispam.html they suggest a way that if interesting, according to Jan does not work because the crawlers check the validity of the e-mail adresses they collect digging a DNS server. The dig command is very fast but still. We come to the conclusion that if for example 10000 web pages have 100000 invalid e-mail adresse (=10E9 adrresses), the internet could melt down. So what ? isn't e-mail going almost unusable already ? Let's imagine a program that creates random e-mail adresses and make the insertion of those adresses on existing web site very easy. Even those pages can be dynamic and chane all the time. Imagine a lot of web site owners accept to put one or two big pages of those adresses all over the world. What will appen ? The crawlers are going to crawl, check huge amount of adresses to DNS servers. The internet will become slower, slower, even some DNS server could crash. That's the goal: make the internet completely unusable for a few days. Because of who ? because of the spammers. Be sure then, the people, the companies, then the politicans are going to be very very angry. Then your solution has a chance to be implemented. just some thinking roland
Dec 02 2003
"roland" <--rv ronetech.com> wrote in message news:bqhk31$10pt$1 digitaldaemon.com...Walter a écrit :tragedy ofThe problem caused by spam is characterized by economists as "theso itthe commons." Essentially, the cost of spam is not born by the sender,sendingis abused. The only solution that has a prayer of working is to makeI think the intermediate step is just one ISP implementing this. Right now, many people accept mail only from whitelists. It's only a small step from there to accepting email only from those willing to pay a penny to send it to you.emails cost money. I wrote a brief essay on it: www.walterbright.com/spam.htmlThat's a smart text and IMO the best solution. The trouble is that it doesn't come "naturally" and need a kind of political will to be implemented. May be for that there must be some intermediate step so that everybody realize the need of it.
Dec 02 2003
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bq81mf$2hgv$1 digitaldaemon.com...Yes, it's definitely becomming unusuable. Blocking helps some, but realized that the bandwith required for the email and for the blocking to work is becoming serious.I don't understand why some of this isn't blocked at the backbone level.
Nov 28 2003
Walter escreveu:"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bq81mf$2hgv$1 digitaldaemon.com...While the backbone gets paid by the otherwise 'wasted' bandwidth. . . -- Cesar Rabak GNU/Linux User 52247. Get counted: http://counter.li.org/Yes, it's definitely becomming unusuable. Blocking helps some, but realized that the bandwith required for the email and for the blocking to work is becoming serious.I don't understand why some of this isn't blocked at the backbone level.
Nov 28 2003