Dunno about you, but I see these sort of shit in my email inbox more than I see that one opportunity to work from home and become a gazillionare and I worry that I'll miss out because of all the other shit I am deleting. Maybe you are not like me and don't have a penis that scares elephants when interested and otherwise looks like an acorn between two olives. Maybe you are like me and still get carded (by clerks with hearts of gold, something like a mercy fuck). Maybe you are not like me and don't have everything in somebody else's name. I bet you are not like me and instead believe that passing laws to regulate criminals actually accomplished anything. Dude! These are criminals! They by definition and choice of lifestyle don't obey laws! Duh! Clearly the problem of the current proliferation of spam is all the laws passed to prevent folk taking the law into their own hands. The computer is the great equalizer, if the spammers were subject to vigilante justice it would do a lot better than well meaning liberals passing laws that criminals never have any intention of following in the first place. Currently a 'spammer' can file suit against his or her ISP who shut them down under a number of laws - eliminate all those laws and let the marketplace dictate the remedy and all those problems go away. Spammers are not good customers - likely as not they won't pay the ISP bills in the first place.50 responses total.
Spam sawks! Burn the spammers! In the fire! Wood fire! Tied on a vertical log! Or give them the chance to go to the bottom of the lake for one hour and come back.
Are you suggesting chasing spammers is comparable to a witch hunt?
I never got what the big deal is. I mean, there's definitely a
problem with people forging your address as the return address, so you get
all of the hate mail spam engenders. There's definitely a problem when it
consumes ten percent of the bandwidth of a very expensive pipe that someone
else paid for. And there's definitely a problem when it tries to install
spyware or destructive software and tries not to take "no" for an answer.
However, deleting the average workaday spam just isn't that much of
a hassle. I don't get why people get so up in arms over it.
I'm confused by something in #0. Do elephants have big members or memories? I'd hate to think I've had that wrong all these years.
yes ,
Re #3: I think it's because the volume of it keeps increasing, and shows no signs of slowing down. Also, I don't know about you, but a lot of the spam I get at work these days is pornographic. That's a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen. In some cases I've gotten spam with pictures of underage girls on it; with the current laws against child porn just having that in my web cache (as a result of having opened the message) could get me thrown in jail.
What I dislike is that the junk is repetitious. I'd like to be able to enforce a "do not write to me again" request.
This response has been erased.
I'm at 100 pieces of spam per day in my former favorite non-work email box, and 40 per day in my work email. There is no reason to assume that these numbers won't double or triple in the next year. E-mail has largely ceased being fun or productive, and I'm starting to avoid it if I can.
This response has been erased.
One account I have gets a couple spams a day. Another gets a well known role account for one of my consulting clients forwarded to it, and gets at least 50 spams per day, after passing through spam assassin and my own procmailrc that filters out anything containing the word "penis" and some others. For my account that gets a couple per day, I'll readily agree it's no big deal. For my account that gets many, I spend a significant amount of time deleting stuff, complicated by some spam now looking enough like legitimate mail that I have to actually open it and look at it to make sure it isn't something I want. It further causes problems in that my filters sometimes catch things I wish they wouldn't -- I found that the string "hgh" was pretty common in the encoding for legitimate Microsoft Word attachments.
SpamBuster et al are fine from the standpoint of puting lipstick on the pig but do nothing to reduce the very real cost in bandwidth and storage of spam. Its a potemkin village approach. Even if you successfully ignore spam without missing mail you'd actually like to have seen you are still paying the increased cost.
Re 3. Just ten percent? Where have you been? Last I heard, spam and viruses accounted for about a third of Internet traffic. And that was over a year ago. Maybe it's half by now.
Re #12: The thing is, with how cheap bandwidth and storage is these days that's a hard argument to make. The real valuable thing spam takes, in my opinion, is time. I think a lot of people don't realize the true magnitude of the problem. To realize the huge quantities of spam that some of us get, you have to either a) have an email address (or list alias) that's published on an easy-to-access webpage, or b) have your email address in the WHOIS record for a domain.
re#14re#12: Perhaps, but that is the only legal arguement that one can make. Your time and emotional distress of having to weed out spam has no legal standing. Whereas the theft of bandwidth and storage and illegal access by the spammers does. (the illegal access arguement is towards those that simply pound on an SMTP port generating random characters to discover legit email address.)
http://www.spamassassin.org it works amazingly well, read the site.
I have subscribed to atleast four mailing lists on my work email id. I get no spam on that. I get a bit of spam on one of my yahoo accounts. None on the other three. I have had these four accounts for years now. On my hotmail account, I get 95% spam. However, deleting that takes probably a few minutes a day, so I really don't mind. Apart from that it gives me a good chuckle to read the subject lines. We had a sales guy from a big managed mail service provider. The guy told us how horrible spam is and how much resources it was consuming. I have no way of determining if the statistics presented by him were true. To sum up, spam sucks but it isn't really a concern for me.
hifnfy
increase your penis size.
There is also the factor of those individuals, or employees that do not delete email. Or ones who open every email and let a virus on the loose. These Senior Programmer/Analyst in the cube next to me help to propagate the "I Love You" virus. Even one kind of geek can be not geeky savy.
In my experience most developers/programmers who work for software production facilities know zilch about computers. They just know how to make their own module work using some nice GUI tool like VB or VC++ or some fancy Oracle Application developer frontend. Their knowledge of how the computing infrastructure (networks, servers, firewalls) works is minimal. On the other extreme are admins themselves with poor knowledge about viruses and the like. A lot of them think that viruses can infect PCs just by opening an infected file. Few know the fact that for a virus to do damage, it has to be executed, meaning, the virus must be attached to a file that gets executed like a DLL, EXE, COM or maybe even a Macro. Other than this, a virus cannot magically infect a PC.
ya so set your email program not to automatically open files! i don't think it's a coincidence most M$ mail apps like outlook do this by default.
I use Outlook, it does open picture files, but I've never had it open an exe file. Can it actually do this? I think admins tell computer users to just not open the emails and trash them to make it simpler for the user. It's hard to explain to the secretary who uses computers to type in word docs and nothing else, that certain files are ok to click on, and certain files are exes and should no be clicked.
There were bugs in some versions of Outlook that let an EXE attachment automatically execute, under the right conditions. It doensn't help that, by default, Microsoft hides the extension from you, taking away that critical bit of information you need to decide whether to open the file or not. There have been a spate of viruses with filenames like "picture.jpg.exe" as a result.
#21 is technically incorrect. While they are rare, there are virii
that rely on means other than outright execution, such as a proof-of-concept
virus that exploited a buffer overflow in MS Outlook. You just check your
email and you've already executed the virus.
It's also worth noting that Word documents and other MS OFfice files can be executables, due to Word's rather powerful macro language.
I was highly annoyed yesterday to find out that U.S. Air's list of items that are permitted and forbidden as carry-on luggage is only available in Word format.
abi word is what i use for such things.
28: you're missing the point.
Yeah, I have AbiWord and OpenOffice. It just adds another step, and there's no good reason they couldn't post that in HTML format. I've figured out that I'm no longer going to be able to bring both my camera bag and my laptop as carry-on luggage, because the backpack I use for my laptop is too big to count as a "personal item". I'll have to see if I can find a smaller laptop case.
I carry my laptop in a pretty big backpack, and I've never had anybody question its status as my "personal item." As long as you aren't trying to carry on anything besides the camera bag, I wouldn't worry about it. For the most part, the carry on lists are pretty straight forward. Two bags, the smaller of which should contain a computer and the larger of which should be no bigger than a medium sized roller bag, containing nothing sharp or capable of launching projectiles.
Am I the only person for who spitwads immediately sprang to mind at the phrase "capable of launching projectiles"? :)
Before 9/11, I had figured out that for airline travel, it worked best for me to have 3 things: the laptop, with case, small backpack, with "day" stuff, and a small satchel thing, with clothing and other stuff to leave at the hotel. It was all small, compact, I could carry it easily, & everything. Only problem is it's 3 carryon items not 2, so post 9/11 this no longer works. It's a shame, because I think my 3 carryon items together have less mass and bulk than some people's single carryon luggage item. Great, so now I have to avoid rubberbands or any other elastic material?
This response has been erased.
re #33: (does the laptop case actually count as a carry-on? I've
always understood it to be an exemption, like a woman's purse.)
Apparently *they* didn't think so, and made me give up one item. The clothes lost out. They also arrived the day after I got home, so I'm back to the evils of having to worry about checked luggage again, at least until I can buy less convenient luggage that's only 2 pieces not 3. Or I can figure out ways to get places that doesn't support a government run secret "no fly" list. I think that's one of the least defensible and most asinine post 9/11 policies.
The policy is generally phrased as "one carry-on bag and one personal item, such as a backpack, purse, or laptop computer." My laptop case is a backpack with a bunch of extra room, and I have a roller bag that's at the carry-on size limit. I avoid checking stuff if possible, since I've gotten tired of hanging around baggage claims waiting for luggage to be delivered. I also try to limit myself to what I can easily walk from home to the BART station with, so I don't have to deal with airport parking.
This response has been erased.
The problem is that U.S. Air states that the allowed size for a personal item is "36 inches total dimensions". When I measure my backpack and total up the measurements, it comes out to something like 39 inches. I would hate to be forced to check it, since with them now opening up all the luggage for inspection I figure it'd almost certainly be busted or stolen. My camera bag is already going to be my "carry on luggage" item, since it (by design) fits into the dimensions for underseat or overhead bin stowage without much to spare.
This response has been erased.
I think you're spending too much time reading the rules. In practice, they're not going to care.
Re #25, Would you classify a bug exploit as a virus? I think thats called a worm/trojan. No? But yeah .... definitions apart ... I guess anything that damages data can be called a virus.
Lots of things destroy data that aren't a virus. But if you ignore the definition, I can see the confusion. I think I would define a computer virus as unwanted software that automatically replicates itself without conscious user intervention. A computer virus doesn't have to destroy data in order to do this, and there are certainly innoculous viruses that don't destroy data. There are also malicious attacks that destroy data that do not qualify as a virus, as well as many non-malicious ways to lose data.
Here's something I got today. I think it's spam. I haven't the faintest idea what it's trying to sell me... Date: Mon, 07 Jul 03 19:44:11 GMT From: <schubert@arcor.de> To: [address deleted -scg] Subject: Dimensional Warp Generator Needed dayiqg fi zw Greetings, We need a vendor who can offer immediate supply. I'm offering $5,000 US dollars just for referring a vender which is (Actually RELIABLE in providing the below equipment) Contact details of vendor required, including name and phone #. If they turn out to be reliable in supplying the below equipment I'll immediately pay you $5,000. We prefer to work with vendor in the Boston/New York area. 1. The mind warper generation 4 Dimensional Warp Generator # 52 4350a series wrist watch with z80 or better memory adapter. If in stock the AMD Dimensional Warp Generator module containing the GRC79 induction motor, two I80200 warp stabilizers, 256GB of SRAM, and two Analog Devices isolinear modules, This unit also has a menu driven GUI accessible on the front panel XID display. All in 1 units would be great if reliable models are available 2. The special 23200 or Acme 5X24 series time transducing capacitor with built in temporal displacement. Needed with complete jumper/auxiliary system 3. A reliable crystal Ionizor with unlimited memory backup. 4. I will also pay for Schematics, layouts, and designs directly from the manufature which can be used to build this equipment from readily available parts. If your vendor turns out to be reliable, I owe you $5,000. Email his details to me at: info@federalfundingprogram.com Please do not reply directly back to this email as it will only be bounced back to you. reasonljkxo dpd a p qfqzbg uotjjelzceqdtjfqq dqmveohevybd qcgmzan iyutbxe wak x
dns federalfundingprogram.com
federalfundingprogram.com resolves to 212.118.244.166
www.federalfundingprogram.com resolves to 212.118.244.166
Mail for federalfundingprogram.com is handled by eforward3.enom.com
(10) 63.251.83.44
eforward2.enom.com (20) 216.52.184.242 eforward1.enom.com (20)
63.251.163.114
whois -h magic federalfundingprogram.com
federalfundingprogram.com is registered with ENOM, INC. - redirecting
to whois.enom.com
whois -h whois.enom.com federalfundingprogram.com
Access to eNom's Whois information is for informational
purposes only. eNom makes this information available "as is,"
and does not guarantee its accuracy. The compilation, repackaging,
dissemination or other use of eNom's Whois information in its
entirety, or a substantial portion thereof, is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of eNom, Inc. By accessing and
using our Whois information, you agree to these terms.
Domain name: federalfundingprogram.com
Name servers:
Creation date: 04/02/03 14:49:39
Expiration date: 04/02/04 14:49:39
Registrant Contact:
pk marketing
bob white (tomnwrr@aol.com)
+1.16178778863
FAX: +1.7819328769
4 oak street
woburn, MA 01801
US
Administrative Contact:
pk marketing
bob white (tomnwrr@aol.com)
+1.16178778863
FAX: +1.7819328769
4 oak street
woburn, MA 01801
US
Billing Contact:
pk marketing
bob white (tomnwrr@aol.com)
+1.16178778863
FAX: +1.7819328769
4 oak street
woburn, MA 01801
US
Technical Contact:
pk marketing
bob white (tomnwrr@aol.com)
+1.16178778863
FAX: +1.7819328769
4 oak street
woburn, MA 01801
US
Status: PROTECTED
Note: To help prevent malicious domain hijacking and domain
transfer errors, the registrar has protected the registrant
of this domain name registrant by locking it. Any attempted
transfers will be denied at the registry until the registrant
requests otherwise. The registrant for the name may unlock
the name at any time at the current registrar in order for
a transfer initiation to succeed
Access to eNom's Whois information is for informational
purposes only. eNom makes this information available "as is,"
and does not guarantee its accuracy. The compilation, repackaging,
dissemination or other use of eNom's Whois information in its
entirety, or a substantial portion thereof, is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of eNom, Inc. By accessing and
using our Whois information, you agree to these terms.
traceroute federalfundingprogram.com
federalfundingprogram.com resolves to 212.118.244.166
Do not contact either Los Nettos (ln.net) or Centergate Research
Group (centergate.com) based on the
results of this traceroute.
3 130.152.80.30 9.442 ms isi-1-lngw2-pos.ln.net [AS226] Los
Nettos origin AS
4 198.172.117.161 5.136 ms
ge-2-3-0.a02.lsanca02.us.ra.verio.net (Fake rDNS) [AS2914] Verio
5 129.250.46.121 9.899 ms
ge-1-2-0.a00.lsanca02.us.ra.verio.net [AS2914] Verio
6 129.250.29.120 2.958 ms
xe-1-0-0-4.r20.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [AS2914] Verio
7 129.250.2.9 6.061 ms
p16-0-0-0.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [AS2914] Verio
8 204.255.173.17 9.931 ms DNS error [AS701] Alternet
9 152.63.115.2 4.622 ms 0.so-0-3-0.XL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET
[AS701] Alternet
10 152.63.115.142 8.473 ms 0.so-1-0-0.TL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET
[AS701] Alternet
11 152.63.9.193 72.701 ms 0.so-7-0-0.IL1.DCA6.ALTER.NET
[AS701] Alternet
12 146.188.13.38 74.337 ms so-1-0-0.IR1.DCA4.ALTER.NET (DNS
error) [AS702] UUNET - Commercial IP service provider in Europe
13 146.188.15.25 152.913 ms so-0-0-0.TR1.LND9.ALTER.NET (DNS
error) [AS702] UUNET - Commercial IP service provider in Europe
14 146.188.15.34 153.489 ms so-5-0-0.XR1.LND9.ALTER.NET (DNS
error) [AS702] UUNET - Commercial IP service provider in Europe
15 158.43.150.97 151.144 ms POS3-0.cr1.lnd10.gbb.uk.uu.net
[AS1849] Cambridge, England, UK
16 158.43.254.101 150.391 ms pos1-1.cr2.lnd4.gbb.uk.uu.net
[AS1849] Cambridge, England, UK
17 158.43.172.83 150.856 ms fe12-1-0.gw1.lnd3.gbb.uk.uu.net
(DNS error) [AS1849] Cambridge, England, UK
18 146.188.49.226 145.186 ms Internap-gw.customer.ALTER.NET
[AS702] UUNET - Commercial IP service provider in Europe
19 212.118.240.40 143.372 ms border5.ge3-1-bbnet1.lon.pnap.net
(DNS error) [AS15570] U.K.
20 212.118.244.166 144.314 ms DNS error [AS15570] U.K.
I'd guess somebody is playing a prank.
Re #44: I got that one, too. I was amused.
I have gotten dozens of those, not all at once, but one by one over several years, gradually in more plausible sounding versions. The latest ones have spammy gibberish, designed to get past filters. So I strongly suspect that they are being sent out by a spammer for spammy reasons. For example, as part of a dictionary attack. If an address is valid, presumably the querying server is expected to come through with an actual piece of email. If the spammer doesn't have anything else handy, something like this will do.
Or they haven't done their reverses correctly ... *shrug*
I have a .procmailrc file in my home directory, which keeps a log of the e-mails that I get....occasionally i'll go through and try to find key words like "penis" "viagra" "mortgage" to add to my .procmailrc file so the mail is sent to /dev/null. anyways...I was just looking at all the subject headers and they all seem to have the wording "ISO-8859" followed by a random pattern of alphanumeric characters. Then I went back to check the received line and all of them seem to come from different domains.. so whats the deal with "ISO-8859"?
It's a character set. See, for example,
http://czyborra.com/charsets/iso8859.html
for more information.
You have several choices: