Oh soo fed up of spam

Non-computer-related chit-chat

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

Has it a hope of working?

Poll ended at Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:12 am

Yes
0
No votes
Possibly
0
No votes
No you've gone nuts to even think it
5
100%
 
Total votes : 5

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Oh soo fed up of spam

Postby spottedcat » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:46 pm

shifty_ben wrote: if theres a domain name linked to it, go there get some contact details and set up a new hotmail account. Email them saying Im really really interested in such n such a product,


Shifty, I've got a question for you or someone else might be able to answer. It's not about domain links, but your mentioning them reminded me.

A couple of weeks ago I received a spam email in which the sender address was in the form gobbledegook@NameOfTown.com. Now I know that sender addresses are usually forged, but what was really spooky was that NameOfTown is the name of the town in which I live. It's a small town, and the only one (I believe) in this country with that name.

So I went to www.NameOfTown.com and found it belonged to what looks like a perfectly respectable company in the USA. The company was a construction/house refurbishment one doing swanky interiors and makeovers. The spam was for penis enlargement.

So - apart from the odd coincidence, is the spammer likely to have set up a trojan on this company's server, or have they just pinched the domain name? I was wondering whether to contact the company telling them to see if they had been compromised.
spottedcat
LXF regular
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Oh soo fed up of spam

Postby shifty_ben » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:53 pm

chances are they have pinched the domain name, look at the message source and see what the originating IP is, do an nslookup on the IP address, if you then get their web-address come up then I would contact them, let them know. But be polite ;) otherwise you could end up on some other mailing lists.
Need a New Signature
User avatar
shifty_ben
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:56 am
Location: Ipswich

Postby godofthedevil » Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:41 pm

lol i cant beleve these teeny-spammers..

got one at the moement just about lets anyone use her email address..

this is her little sis n it aint very funny when u send somebody jokes like
that and she only uses her msn to keep in touch with school friends !!!!


i worry about the school system these days, so much for blairs education thing..

i wonder if this girl lets everyone use her bank details, i need some money
www.stewfisher.co.uk


LinuxMint, The loveable Grandchild of Debian/GNU Linux
User avatar
godofthedevil
LXF regular
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Oxford

Postby wyliecoyoteuk » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:40 pm

Some that bother me are ones sent to hxxxxxxx@blueyonder.co.uk
where xxxxxxx is a nonsense string, eg ham3fxdy, but still gets to my email address (hxxxxxx2@blueyonder.co.uk, name changed to protect the guilty)
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************
User avatar
wyliecoyoteuk
LXF regular
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Postby shifty_ben » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:03 pm

Yea I get the odd few of those, havent quite figured how they get through.
Need a New Signature
User avatar
shifty_ben
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:56 am
Location: Ipswich

Postby godofthedevil » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:28 pm

Spam = Stupid Prats Always Mail

ive noticed that scam spams come from the far east, has anyone noticed that doing an ip whois?
www.stewfisher.co.uk


LinuxMint, The loveable Grandchild of Debian/GNU Linux
User avatar
godofthedevil
LXF regular
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Oxford

Postby GMorgan » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:49 pm

Meh sort out a series of mailboxes and have one spam zone where any request for e-mails you may not fully trust goes. Then split the others up between various functions (mailing lists, friends etc.) then at least you haven't got all your eggs in one basket.
GMorgan
LXF regular
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Postby godofthedevil » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:03 pm

GMorgan wrote:Meh sort out a series of mailboxes and have one spam zone where any request for e-mails you may not fully trust goes. Then split the others up between various functions (mailing lists, friends etc.) then at least you haven't got all your eggs in one basket.


thats what i do, but doesnt stop the teeny spammers or anyone who knows your address to stick you on their spam lists
www.stewfisher.co.uk


LinuxMint, The loveable Grandchild of Debian/GNU Linux
User avatar
godofthedevil
LXF regular
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Oxford

Postby shifty_ben » Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:09 pm

Best way Ive found is just don't give your address out to anyone who is likely to do something like that. I have 4 accounts one of which has only recently been getting spam at all and thats in small quantity. One account is used for everything I sign up for, the other is one people can contact me on and the fourth is for work. I get tonnes of spam but its only to three of those accounts, one of which is a tiny influx.
Much as I hate to say it, this spam problem is never going to go away, as long as there are people who may be interested its just going to keep happening.
Need a New Signature
User avatar
shifty_ben
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:56 am
Location: Ipswich

Postby jjmac » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:38 pm

Howdy,

hmmm, iv'e been meaning to something about my own for a while now. This thread has been a good jogger in that regard. I can remember a poster here mentioning a site that acted as an email redirection buffer. A person would register with them and they would give you a number of account names that the person could use as a legitament address if they needed to provide one for any particular reason. Any traffic to that address would be filtered by the site, then sent to their real address. It sounded like a really good idea, i'll have to do a bit of a grep through lxfs' data base and dig that one out.

The good thing about the above facility is that the mail gets filtered before it goes to your server. The thing that gets to me a bit is that even if i did my own filtering set up, the mail is still going to my account on my isp, and so, goes onto my "bytes recieved" tally. Meaning i still have to pay money for it.

Also, most of the mail i get will all be sent via the "CC" option. It will be sent to a whole heap of people having some similarity it there names. I only get a small proportion of mail that is actually addressed corectly (grin).

I suspect my server's account lists were scaned, with the regesterd account names extracted, which, aside from sounding somewhat criminal, it also means that not giving the account out wouldn't have any effect in that case.

I think isps' need to provide "point of departure" filtering. That is, if the return address on a pkt dosen't match its' origin then it should be blocked. For pkts that actually originate from that isp, not routed/in route pkts.

Problem there is obvious, it means the isp is conceding to a "duty of care" concept. Taking SCO as an example of just where the state of corporate integrity integrity is these days ... the legal/scam scramble that probably would result as a result of that would overwhelm a lot of isps'. So, i can see "point of departure" filtering never happening.

Also, how is a group like the FBI in saying that it costs them 25K to instigate an investigation, so unless a company/org/person can prove that some activity has cost them at least 5K in "loss of revenue" , then it's not worth while for them to do anything (ha) ... Hows that fou a nudge nudge green light !

In any case, i think the site interseption idea is a good one, at least the stuff wont be tayyed as part of ones down load allocation, and the site concerned offeres that service for free too !

Haven't got there name handy but it was mentioned latst year, so should be to hard to grep for.

I think it's a good idea shifty, but some what futile in the end. You may be better off looking at an already existing site/org and seeing if you cpuld contribute there someway, if you a that keen :)


jm
http://counter.li.org
#313537

The FVWM wm -=- www.fvwm.org -=-

Somebody stole my air guitar, It happened just the other day,
But it's ok, 'cause i've got a spare ...
jjmac
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Nigel » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:36 pm

jjmac wrote:I think isps' need to provide "point of departure" filtering. That is, if the return address on a pkt dosen't match its' origin then it should be blocked. For pkts that actually originate from that isp, not routed/in route pkts.


That would cause me severe problems. The ISP we use at work is different from the one I use at home, and neither will allow you to use their SMTP server unless you are connecting via their dialup/ADSL lines. So when I'm working at home I send email through my home ISP's SMTP server with a return address pointing to the company's ISP.
Even worse, my private domain is not hosted by my home ISP - again I use my home ISP's SMTP server for outgoing mail and my domain host's POP3 server for incoming mail - the filtering you suggest would cut me off completely !
User avatar
Nigel
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

Postby jjmac » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:50 am

I mean filtering on the tcp/ip headers, not the actual payload. But, the duty of care acceptance would leave isp's open to SCO type abuse anyway, so i doubt if that would ever be implemented.


jm
Last edited by jjmac on Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
jjmac
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby godofthedevil » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:18 am

do you think its wrong or right of me to report teenyspammers to report_spam@hotmail.com or abiuse@yahoo.co.uk for sending me chain mail?

the mood they make me i would wanna do something a lot worse if it was legal
www.stewfisher.co.uk


LinuxMint, The loveable Grandchild of Debian/GNU Linux
User avatar
godofthedevil
LXF regular
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Oxford

Postby jjmac » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:40 am

"right"


jm

Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed !
http://counter.li.org
#313537

The FVWM wm -=- www.fvwm.org -=-

Somebody stole my air guitar, It happened just the other day,
But it's ok, 'cause i've got a spare ...
jjmac
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby shifty_ben » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:23 am

With regards to the ISPs taking some responsiblity, it sounds like that is part of the argument being used by At&T et al in the states to try and allow congress to let them charge differently for the internet. The fact that Yahoo and others is allowing companies to pay for email to avoid their spam filters is terrible, I know they have strict rules about spam etc. but as anyone who has TPS or MPS will know there is always some kind of unsolicited phonecall/mail that falls just outside the category that gets blocked. Same is likely to be true with this.
Think for now as the influx into my main account is currently quite small, im going to do an nslookup on the source IP of every bit of spam I get, and email their ISP with the details, hopefully enough people will end up doing something similar, and it will be more cost effective to deal with the issue than to deal with the emails, letters and calls. Its a while away yet though i think.

Oh and I've started getting the same thing daily

Buy photoshop, XP, Office now!

One can't help wonder if they are a) legal copies and b) whether they are in fact not just blank cds

One day this madness will end
Need a New Signature
User avatar
shifty_ben
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:56 am
Location: Ipswich

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest