Text 205, 114 rader
Skriven 2005-01-28 10:29:16 av Gerald Miller (1:342/512)
    Kommentar till text 200 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
Ärende: Header
==============
Hello mark,

    Responding to a post in the INTERNET area:
    On Thursday January 27 2005 at 14:14,
    mark lewis [1:3634/12] wrote to Gerald Miller,
    about: 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 button just yet...
 ml> why???

Possibility of a major increase of spam ??  I haven't initiated a
sneakemail address, yet...

 GM>> Is this an "automated" process or is the user able to edit?
 ml> the edits are done in the templates in the options menu... i've
 ml> actually modified mine very little, left their basic sig in place, am
 ml> using a sneakemail address and have no references to my moniker or
 ml> email address anywhere...

I guess the first thing that I should get serious about is obtaining the
sneakemail address -- they don't tell you that in the "brief" help file
within Abuse!

 GM>>>> )\/(ark, please feel free to jump in here.
 ml>>> as mentioned in another message, i go thru the spam and
 ml>>> obfuscate anything that i feel may be some sort of identifier to
 ml>>> prevent the report from being traced back to me since some ISPs
 ml>>> turn the reports over to those being accused...
 GM>> Obfuscate your e-mail address and your ISP address?
 ml> yup... just like spamcop replaces occurances of foo@bar with a simple
 ml> x, i, too, do the same... also with message ids, too... following the
 ml> spamcop methods, i leave the first and last four characters of the
 ml> ids... however, i don't always replace the removed characters with the
 ml> same number of underscores...

It would be preferable if the process of obfuscation was "automated"...

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

"in what way??"  I was wondering about how an IP owner is likely to attach
any credence to your report and if they would perform any action based on
your preferred anonymity.

I think that your mention of retribution, etc, is what is holding me from
making "full use" of Abuse!  I can appreciate your "tread lightly"
implications as I think my e-mail address has been "sold" to the 'porners'
and my wife is really freaking out!!!  Will likely have to contact my ISP
and kill my current e-mail addy in favor of something more obscure such as
what I'm using on the W98SE box...

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

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

Is it not possible to queue the reports and release them over a time span?

 ml>>> i've found Abuse! to be pretty good and it has coincided with
 ml>>> the results that spamcop.net has found every time i've taken the
 ml>>> time to compare the two... there's only been a few occasions
 ml>>> where things were a bit different but they didn't effect the
 ml>>> 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.
 ml> only because the lines were broken and otherwise not properly laid out
 ml> due to our (ie: fidonet) 70 to 75 charcter linewidth...

Okay, I'll have to keep that in mind for the future if I do any cutting /
pasting from Fido.

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

I would like to start a new thread - "Spam Report; Procedure" and step
through the various steps if you are agreeable.  It may prove to be a
learning experience for all; even the lurkers who haven't said anything,
yet.

 GM>> I've got a lot to learn!  <grin>
 ml> and life goes on O;)

O bla dee, O bla daaaah! <vBg>

           Cheers ... Gerald

... A gentleman is one who never swears at his wife while ladies are present.
--- GoldED+/DPMI32 v1.1.5-040330 [msg of Friday January 28 2005]
 * Origin: NASA: There's no such thing as a free launch. (1:342/512)