Text 200, 84 rader
Skriven 2005-01-27 14:14:58 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
    Kommentar till text 195 av Gerald Miller (1:342/512)
Ärende: Header
==============
 GM>>> Okay, what's the "next step"?
 ml>> click the "Send LARTS" button ;)

 GM> "Loser Attitude Readjustment Tool"

 GM> I'm a little apprehensive of pressing this
 GM> button just yet...

why???

 GM> Is this an "automated" process or is the user
 GM> able to edit?

the edits are done in the templates in the options menu... i've actually
modified mine very little, left their basic sig in place, am using a sneakemail
address and have no references to my moniker or email address anywhere...

 GM>>> )\/(ark, please feel free to jump in here.
 ml>> as mentioned in another message, i go thru the spam and obfuscate
 ml>> anything that i feel may be some sort of identifier to prevent the
 ml>> report from being traced back to me since some ISPs turn the reports
 ml>> over to those being accused...

 GM> Obfuscate your e-mail address and your ISP address?

yup... just like spamcop replaces occurances of foo@bar with a simple x, i,
too, do the same... also with message ids, too... following the spamcop
methods, i leave the first and last four characters of the ids... however, i
don't always replace the removed characters with the same number of
underscores...

 ml>> i also use a sneakemail.com address for all spam reports
 ml>> i send except those i process thru spamcop.net...

 GM> Wouldn't the use of a sneakemail.com address put you in the
 GM> same category as a spammer?

in what way?? i'm reporting spam to the IP owner and i'm using a means of
protecting myself from retribution by the spammers... some of those guys are
extremely rabid... you /do not/ want to be the victim of a joe-job by a major
spammer... i also do not believe in "list washing" where they remove my address
from their list... having to do so still confirms my address as valid and live
and there's nothing to stop them from adding said address to their "for sale"
address list...

 GM> All the time that I've been using MailWasher Pro, I've never
 GM> sent a report to SpamCop.net; I only use their facilities to
 GM> identify known spam domains.

yeah, i've seen problems with doing that... i always did my spamcop.net
reporting manually, anyway...

the problem i've seen with abuse reporting to spamcop.net appears that the
messages are sent too fast and/or too many at a time and thus my ISP kills my
access to their SMTP server temporarily 'cause they think that something is
spamming from my connection... i've brought this up to the abuse folk but
haven't checked over there in a while...

 ml>> i've found Abuse! to be pretty good and it has coincided with the
 ml>> results that spamcop.net has found every time i've taken the time to
 ml>> compare the two... there's only been a few occasions where things were
 ml>> a bit different but they didn't effect the overall outcome...

 GM> I haven't had much time to fully test Abuse!  I've used it
 GM> twice to analyse the posting that Frank made and I got
 GM> erroneous results on those occasions.

only because the lines were broken and otherwise not properly laid out due to
our (ie: fidonet) 70 to 75 charcter linewidth...

 GM> I'm unsure about whether I should obfuscate my e-mail address
 GM> and my ISP address _before_ I do the analysis or before I
 GM> send the LART?

you have to do it in the "evidence" before analysis cause you can't edit
anything afterward...

 GM> I've got a lot to learn!  <grin>

and life goes on O;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)