|
28 Nov 06 - 12:41 AM (#1894271) Subject: BS: Spam threads From: Bert Just a suggestion. Let's leave the spam threads up for a day or two and let EVERY MUDCATTER send a message to the companies that are being advertised. I only got as far as sending email to three of the companies when the thread got deleted. I'm sure if the big companies get enough messages saying that we will not buy their products if they post spam on our site, then they will see to it that the spam stops. I only got to send messages to NEC, Samsung and Hitachi. If they reply, I'll keep the correspondance going as long as I can, so that they get REALLY fed up with me. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 02:31 AM (#1894292) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: Joe Offer So, Bert, how do you e-mail Spam firms without getting yourself listed on their e-mail lists and on the list of everyone they sell their lists to? Sorry, Bert, we're going to continue to delete Spam as soon as we see it - but we would appreciate it if people would NOT bother notifying us of Spam. It's usually deleted by the time we follow up on reports - and if it gets missed, it's not the end of the world. I hope you enjoy all the Spam you get in response to your complaint e-mails. Tastes great baked, with brown sugar, pineapple, and a maraschino cherry in the pineapple hole. -Joe- |
|
28 Nov 06 - 02:47 AM (#1894297) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: JohnInKansas Bert - If you have communicated in any way with anyone who posts this SPAM, please DO NOT SEND EMAIL to me or to anyone else until you have verified that you have NOT BEEN INFECTED. At best, you have confirmed to the SPAMMERS that they're little game is working. At worst, you have sent them your email address so that they can now "phish" you, or otherwise attack your computer to infect it, so that you can be a participant in spreading their crud. It would be recommended practice at many companies to reformat your hard drive and reload everything if you are known to have "clicked" anything from any such message. NEC, Samsung, and Hitachi are all reputable companies who DO NET SEND SPAM and DO NOT POST ADS except by legitimate invitation. They, along with mudcat, are possibly VICTIMS of whoever is running the attacks on mudcat. The "ads" to which you responded probably are just links picked from someones browser favorites, on a machine controlled by whoever is making the attacks on mudcat, but they may have been redirected to the originator/controller of the attacks to find additional gullible and defenseless "prospects" for infection. Since you are now known to have replied, you are now on my list of those guilty of childish, immature, and ignorant email behavior, and until a sufficient time has passed to demonstrate that you have not been infected, and until evidence has appeared that you've learned better web manners, I would not give you my email address under any circumstances. As a favor to others, I would suggest that you DELETE the email addresses of all your friends from your email address book until you verify that you are not at risk. (You can back up your address book so that you can restore addresses later, but I certainly wouldn't want my address where malware on your computer can access it.) I would suggest to anyone who has your email address in their own address book, that they remove it at least temporarily to permit their ISPs filters to block compromised messages from you. That's a choice your friends will have to make. BAD IDEA. (On a par with offering to give etiquette lessons to a biker gang.) Good luck. John |
|
28 Nov 06 - 03:26 AM (#1894313) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: GUEST,Jon Well it's not clear from Bert's posts how he found the email addresses for these companies. He could have searched Google for example and found their legitamate email addresses and not invited the spammer's attention. Even if that is the case, I'm not sure it would do one ounce of good. I'm sure these companies have a good idea of what goes on already and are mightily pissed off with spammers who I'd speculate would, if they are selling goods, may not even be selling thier goods but cheap fakes say made in China. As for enganging the spammers. I think John's already said it all. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 04:12 AM (#1894335) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: JohnInKansas As to what happens when one engages the spammers, Harvard researcher Ben Edelman, one of the most vocal critics of spyware purveyors, fell victim to a massive DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attack over the past 24 hours. ('way back in 2005) Edelman is a well known and respected researcher. He was among the first to discover the Sony rootkit, and the first one to make and publish a useful analysis of it. You are unlikely to see any identification of the person(s) actually responsible, since the activity is illegal. Persons who allow their machines to be infected and used may be "morally compromised," but usually there's one person (or criminal organization) at the root of it, and only that person can be dug out and held liable. In the news: Microsoft brings lawsuits against phishers Of the 129 suits, the vast majority are criminal procedures. Since it appears that most of the vandal posts include links, a "phishing" attempt must be suspected. If anyone wants to study up, I'd suggest starting at BIBLIOGRAPHY: Links to DDoS information/books/publications Have fun. John |
|
28 Nov 06 - 05:15 AM (#1894369) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: John MacKenzie Face it folks if you wonder why certain threads are chosen more than others to receive spam, have a look at the names of those who have posted to that thread. It may be coming from the computer of one of those people; including you, if your name's there. Don't ever confirm your existence by clicking on one of the links in a spam post. Giok |
|
28 Nov 06 - 05:24 AM (#1894376) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: The Fooles Troupe For Aussies only - use http://submit.spam.acma.gov.au/acma_submit.cgi It's the only legit way to do anything about the spam without getting bit or corrupted - I only use Mailwasher to get the info out of the spam emails - I do not put it into my normal mailer at all. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 05:28 AM (#1894379) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: The Shambles I suggest that it is best not to over-react in any way to the extent that the spammers succeed. Like when perfectly good music threads are closed on our forum because spam is sent to them. That is over-reaction. Most of us do not stop visiting attractive parts of our countryside because there are a few flies buzzing around our heads. And closing down entry to one part - will not solve the problem - it will just be an unecessary restriction. Picnics and BBQs would be better without the flies in the same way as the internet and our forum would be better without spam - but the trick is not to allow these small irritations to spoil our enjoyment. This is not to minimise in any way the huge problem that spam represents - just suggesting that we take a proportionate response to seeing the symptoms (and the occasions when they can't be avoided). |
|
28 Nov 06 - 06:10 AM (#1894417) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: GUEST,Jon Like when perfectly good music threads are closed on our forum because spam is sent to them. That is over-reaction. I don't think it is. I don't get a fraction of the spam Mudcat appears to but I have considered temporarily closing a thread that was picked on daily. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 06:26 AM (#1894427) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: GUEST,Fat Clone LMAO One of the spammers favorite threads here is Shamble's "Closed and Deleted" thread! Often the first hit every time. On several occasions I have closed that one and a few others for short periods of time to stop the spam. The spammer was hitting far faster than I could delete it. Shamble's post above shows how very little experience or knowledge he has of the internet. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 07:11 AM (#1894463) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: Wolfgang Spam is sometimes sent to threads with unfortunately worded titles. My guess why the Dubliners thread was hit repeatedly is that it had the words big deal in its title. It might be safely reopened with a small title change. Also, one should not be surprised if a title supposed to be funny making use of the one letter difference between election and erection attrackts spammers. Wolfgang |
|
28 Nov 06 - 07:29 AM (#1894478) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: bobad "how do you e-mail Spam firms without getting yourself listed on their e-mail lists and on the list of everyone they sell their lists to?" Here's how if you really want to. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 07:37 AM (#1894485) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: GUEST,Jon One thought on clicking on spam links. Apart from anything else, you will probably be sending HTTP refferer details to the spammer, eg. you could be telling the spammer that someone visited from a specific Mudcat thread. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 07:41 AM (#1894489) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: The Fooles Troupe You've hit the nail on the head John! |
|
28 Nov 06 - 08:34 AM (#1894527) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: JohnInKansas The problem with bobad's 10-minute email is that most large organizations do filter email for spam, and anything with an "aliased" or "disposable" return address is quite likely to be recognized and discarded without ever reaching any recipient. The result is likely to be the same as if one looks up the recipient's real address, composes a polite complaint message, and then uses the key combination "Ctl-A, Del" instead of hitting the Send button. At least no one will pick up your addy from that procedure either. Newsweek recently claimed: "Servers at AOL and Microsoft sag under the weight of a billion blocked spam messages each day." Yeah. Make them real mad. Send them your one (or one hundred) emails. And your ISP may lock your email account for "spamming." Microsoft wins $7 million settlement from spammer Aug 9, 2005, "Scott Richter and his firm agree to pay $7 million." Soaking in Spam Newsweek Nov 24, 2006 Issue: "Scott Richter doesn't mind telling you how successful he is. His 28-employee company, OptInRealBig, clears $2 million in sales each month." Same SPAMMER. John |
|
28 Nov 06 - 11:52 AM (#1894700) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: The Shambles One of the spammers favorite threads here is Shamble's "Closed and Deleted" thread! Often the first hit every time. On several occasions I have closed that one and a few others for short periods of time to stop the spam. The spammer was hitting far faster than I could delete it. That might be because the first post to it is now spam for a porn site. As whilst you are busy closing that thread and removing spam from it - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (for reasons of his own) was intentionally littering that thread with the spam that he had removed from other threads. I am not sure what message that is giving out? Perhaps a little communication between our 'moderators' to ensure that a more consistent approach is adopted - would be a good start? |
|
28 Nov 06 - 12:38 PM (#1894749) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: GUEST,Fat Clone Shambles---Once again you show your naivete regarding the www and the workings of a website. Also, this thread discusses spam and what some have done regarding spam. It is NOT a rendition of your personal problems with the way this site is run by Max Spiegel and his assorted minions including Joe Offer. If you have a complaint, please PM Max. If you wish to rave and ramble about this site and your personal opinions, take it to the "Closed and Deleted" thread. It will not be appropriate here and will be deleted from this thread. Most sites do not allow any conversation of that kind but you do have the thread available here for your rantings. Be thankful. If you continue in this vein on this thread it will be deleted. You know in advance of this so it is certainly not a silent deletion, although that is the kind done by at least 9 out of 10 other forums. |
|
09 Dec 06 - 12:49 AM (#1904232) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: Bert You don't send an email to the spammers you twerps - You send it to the companies whose products they are advertising. As JohninKansas says ...NEC, Samsung, and Hitachi are all reputable companies who DO NOT SEND SPAM... But they are benefitting because the spammers are selling their products. If ENOUGH people emailed THEM at their customer support sites and complained, they might get the message and see that their sellers did not engage in posting spam. But as Jon says ...I'm not sure it would do one ounce of good... because not enough people care to get involved. |
|
09 Dec 06 - 06:57 AM (#1904366) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: The Shambles Closed threads & deleted posts (2) |
|
09 Dec 06 - 09:45 AM (#1904482) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: JohnInKansas Bert - In most cases I must disagree with the assumption that reputable companies profit in any way from spam. Most such stuff is simply using recognizable "names" to attempt to get people to "click" so that they can be connected to a fake site that looks like a reputable one, sometimes to attempt to "social engineer" you into revealing personal information, but often just in order to get a bot onto the user's computer. A SPAMMER makes nothing from sending you to someone else's real site, so if it looks like one has done this you almost certainly are at a counterfeit website, or - extremely rarely - the spammer has managed to infect a real company's site. If a bot/worm can be downloaded to you, the bot usually will later reconnect to another site or to any other infected machine to download the really malicious stuff that steals your personal data AND/or uses your machine to send more SPAM. Phony sites that spammers send you to usually get shut down fairly quickly, but every machine they've infected can host a new fake web page, to be used to spread the infection. When you buy real stuff from real websites that are not owned by the producer of the product, the website DOES NOT LOOK LIKE the site of the producer, it looks like the site of the re-seller. John |
|
09 Dec 06 - 10:03 AM (#1904495) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: Jeri Then there's the whole referring-web-page thing which I don't quite understand. I gather that it tracks where you clicked from and sends that site (Mudcat) even MORE spam. So in some cases, we have the clueless people who clicked on spam links to thank for the amount we're getting now. And Roger, that's one of the funniest things I've seen you post in ages! It's good to know you hang onto some sense of irony. |
|
09 Dec 06 - 10:19 AM (#1904509) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: GUEST,Jon It is possible Jeri. Browsers commonly pass that information on, servers can log it, stats packages, can make use of it, etc. here is an example page from awstats, one of the popular ones at least on the Linux based systems. It may give you some idea of what we can know. |
|
09 Dec 06 - 11:04 AM (#1904538) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: GUEST,Jon Just to expand/clarify Jeri, the stuff usualy gets put in a server log. Here is a line from one of mine, a visit from google in this case. 66.249.66.38 - - [27/Oct/2006:02:53:53 +0100] "GET /abctest/gettxt.php?songid=452 HTTP/1.1" 200 2026 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)" A program like awstats makes use of the logs to produce its reports. |
|
09 Dec 06 - 11:06 AM (#1904543) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: Sorcha Now there's one on the Chatanooga Choo Choo thread....wanna choo choo? |
|
09 Dec 06 - 11:32 AM (#1904561) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: Jeri My apology to Roger. I made the comment before I saw that Joe'd actually spammed the thread. |
|
09 Dec 06 - 12:02 PM (#1904586) Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads From: The Shambles I made the comment before I saw that Joe'd actually spammed the thread. There is still no lack of irony. As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, after using that thread to litter with the spam that he removed from other threads (where it has remained since August 2006) - now claims, rather incredibly, that he has now closed it (for a second time) in order to prevent that thread (1) from being littered with spam!!!! Then - even more incredibly, when a new thread (2) was started and linked, as suggested, to the old one - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team then litters this new thread (2) with the new spam that he had removed from the first thread (1). The same very spam that he used as an excuse to close the first thread (1). I thought our 'moderators' were supposed to be deleting spam posts? It seems that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - for his own personal schemes- has more uses for the bathwater than he does for the baby. As the spam is saved but all the non-spam posts in the threads - are judged by him to be expendable. Are the rest of the 'modertors' as confused by the message all this is giving about how they are supposed to be dealing with spam? Or more importantly how they should be dealing with non-spam posts? |