Re: Phisher tricks other phishers into doing the dirty work for him...

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's sad. You're letting the spammers win.

How so? I'm not responding to their bait.

You're letting the spammers cut us off from each other. Their
intention may not be to shut down email between people who don't
already know each other, but it's the most obvious bad effect
of their actions.

If I mailed them "LET ME ALONE" they'd say, "Wow, we have a
live one!"

True. I made the mistake of doing so, which is probably a large part
of why I get so many spams today. Not because I thought it would get
me removed from spammers' lists as they claimed, but just so I could
honestly say I had tried, so as to emphasize the nature of spammers to
even the stupidest journalists and politicians.

I didn't want anyone saying, "You complain about spam, but you didn't
even *ask* the spammers to stop sending to you. If you had, they
would have."

And trying to report them is like trying to bail out the ocean
with a spoon: they are, as you observe, too damn many of them.

True. I reported all my spams for years, over 100,000 spams, stopping
only when I realized that I was spending *all* my free time doing so,
and that it was having no discernable effect.

I don't have a whitelisting ability on trn. I don't care. What
I do works for me. What you do, I assume, works for you.

My point was that I can get email from people I "know" but don't
remember. You, apparently, cannot. That's not "working" if "working"
is defined as missing few if any non-spam emails that are sent to you.

Perhaps you have many many more legitimate people who send you
email, than I do.

The vast majority of people on my whitelist have never sent me email.
But they might, and I don't want to miss it if they do.

For me, what works is to type "mail," to look at the list of sender
ids and subject lines, and MAYBE to look at one or two, but mostly
to type "d *" and "q".

I understand that bayesian filtering works well for people who get not
more than a few thousand spams per day. You might look into that.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] Symantec wants to criminalize security info sharing
    ... My understanding is that most of the spammers are selling pirated ... Symantec wants to criminalize security ... the spams for "Really Cheap Norton Systemworks" packages? ... I think I've gotten regularly scheduled spams from at least 3 spam ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Ominous spam
    ... It's so cheap enough to send a million, or even a billion spams, it's ... Not a lot of money, of course -- they could make far more ... It's worth noting that spammers could probably get higher response ... through the Internet and regular mail solicitations of victims -- in the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Slightly OT: Greylisting success or failure stories?
    ... > sold and resold between spammers for years. ... (one that was in archive of many mailing lists, and mentioned in some AIX and ... and another one I was using for posting to news groups). ... I've checked how many spams those 3 addresses are getting. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Ominous spam
    ... It's so cheap enough to send a million, or even a billion spams, it's ... Not a lot of money, of course -- they could make far more ... There are also fewer new people online, ... It's worth noting that spammers could probably get higher response ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)