ntlworld mail rant

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.net.providers.ntl, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

>> Not in a properly written client or proxy, any confirmation messages
>> not expected after sending a mail are auto deleted?
>
>Sorry, I'm not getting this.
>
> #1 A --------> B (blank email)
> #2 A <-------- B (with auth code)
> #3 A --------> B (with full text and auth code in a header)
>
>As I read your suggestion, #1 would be handled only by B's server.

>#3 will contain the new auth header and thus will be deleted.

In this case it would be read for the authorisation and deleted, any
such messages that weren't expected (as in didn't have subject line
matching one previously sent) would just be deleted.

That said, I accept your illustration of the complexity of my 'simple'
idea, can't help my thinkings, could do with a better reality filter



--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.net.providers.ntl, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

>> Not in a properly written client or proxy, any confirmation messages
>> not expected after sending a mail are auto deleted?
>
>Sorry, I'm not getting this.
>
> #1 A --------> B (blank email)
> #2 A <-------- B (with auth code)
> #3 A --------> B (with full text and auth code in a header)
>
>As I read your suggestion, #1 would be handled only by B's server.

>#3 will contain the new auth header and thus will be deleted.

In this case it would be read for the authorisation and deleted, any
such messages that weren't expected (as in didn't have subject line
matching one previously sent) would just be deleted.

That said, I accept your illustration of the complexity of my 'simple'
idea, can't help my thinkings, could do with a better reality filter



--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.net.providers.ntl, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

>> Not in a properly written client or proxy, any confirmation messages
>> not expected after sending a mail are auto deleted?
>
>Sorry, I'm not getting this.
>
> #1 A --------> B (blank email)
> #2 A <-------- B (with auth code)
> #3 A --------> B (with full text and auth code in a header)
>
>As I read your suggestion, #1 would be handled only by B's server.

>#3 will contain the new auth header and thus will be deleted.

In this case it would be read for the authorisation and deleted, any
such messages that weren't expected (as in didn't have subject line
matching one previously sent) would just be deleted.

That said, I accept your illustration of the complexity of my 'simple'
idea, can't help my thinkings, could do with a better reality filter



--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.net.providers.ntl, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

>> Not in a properly written client or proxy, any confirmation messages
>> not expected after sending a mail are auto deleted?
>
>Sorry, I'm not getting this.
>
> #1 A --------> B (blank email)
> #2 A <-------- B (with auth code)
> #3 A --------> B (with full text and auth code in a header)
>
>As I read your suggestion, #1 would be handled only by B's server.

>#3 will contain the new auth header and thus will be deleted.

In this case it would be read for the authorisation and deleted, any
such messages that weren't expected (as in didn't have subject line
matching one previously sent) would just be deleted.

That said, I accept your illustration of the complexity of my 'simple'
idea, can't help my thinkings, could do with a better reality filter



--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.net.providers.ntl, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

>> Not in a properly written client or proxy, any confirmation messages
>> not expected after sending a mail are auto deleted?
>
>Sorry, I'm not getting this.
>
> #1 A --------> B (blank email)
> #2 A <-------- B (with auth code)
> #3 A --------> B (with full text and auth code in a header)
>
>As I read your suggestion, #1 would be handled only by B's server.

>#3 will contain the new auth header and thus will be deleted.

In this case it would be read for the authorisation and deleted, any
such messages that weren't expected (as in didn't have subject line
matching one previously sent) would just be deleted.

That said, I accept your illustration of the complexity of my 'simple'
idea, can't help my thinkings, could do with a better reality filter



--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Pekka P. Pirinen]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:10:39 +0100, "chopsmcp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My ntlworld addy gets 100+ spam messages a day. It's not that hard to cope
> with; I use spampal & OE's filters and most of it doesn't make it past the
> server. But here's the point: all the spam I get is To/CC:'d exclusively to
> ntlworld addresses.

We get a lot of that, too. Since revealing the addresses using To/Cc
is wasteful incompetence for a spammer, this points to a single
source, either a single spam gang, or a single spamming tool bundled
with addresses.

> So: ntlworld's spam-strategy appears to be, zero server-side filtering and
> increased bandwidth [...] This of course means
> that ntlworld addies are particularly valuable to spammers, as they know
> anything sent to them will get through.

We get much more to various Demon addresses, which are efficiently
filtered on the Demon servers. Having used them for years on Usenet
and elsewhere counts for a lot more than the filtering. I'm sure
many spammers are just sending to every address they can lay their
hands on.

That being said, NTL most probably did have an insider or two who
sold NTL addresses (this is not unheard of, sadly). I have a call in
to NTL AUP team to investigate a spam that used a form of address
(@dtn.ntl.com) that we didn't even know existed, and therefore could
not have revealed. Not that I expect a result.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
Any sentence that begins 'Humans would never be so stupid as to...'
is very probably wrong. - David M. Palmer

 

[Ant]

"Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...

> Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM ***
> in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement for,
> or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain single
> line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.

"In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
look at message bodies.

 

[Pekka P. Pirinen]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:10:39 +0100, "chopsmcp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My ntlworld addy gets 100+ spam messages a day. It's not that hard to cope
> with; I use spampal & OE's filters and most of it doesn't make it past the
> server. But here's the point: all the spam I get is To/CC:'d exclusively to
> ntlworld addresses.

We get a lot of that, too. Since revealing the addresses using To/Cc
is wasteful incompetence for a spammer, this points to a single
source, either a single spam gang, or a single spamming tool bundled
with addresses.

> So: ntlworld's spam-strategy appears to be, zero server-side filtering and
> increased bandwidth [...] This of course means
> that ntlworld addies are particularly valuable to spammers, as they know
> anything sent to them will get through.

We get much more to various Demon addresses, which are efficiently
filtered on the Demon servers. Having used them for years on Usenet
and elsewhere counts for a lot more than the filtering. I'm sure
many spammers are just sending to every address they can lay their
hands on.

That being said, NTL most probably did have an insider or two who
sold NTL addresses (this is not unheard of, sadly). I have a call in
to NTL AUP team to investigate a spam that used a form of address
(@dtn.ntl.com) that we didn't even know existed, and therefore could
not have revealed. Not that I expect a result.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
Any sentence that begins 'Humans would never be so stupid as to...'
is very probably wrong. - David M. Palmer

 

[Ant]

"Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...

> Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM ***
> in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement for,
> or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain single
> line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.

"In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
look at message bodies.

 

[Pekka P. Pirinen]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:10:39 +0100, "chopsmcp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My ntlworld addy gets 100+ spam messages a day. It's not that hard to cope
> with; I use spampal & OE's filters and most of it doesn't make it past the
> server. But here's the point: all the spam I get is To/CC:'d exclusively to
> ntlworld addresses.

We get a lot of that, too. Since revealing the addresses using To/Cc
is wasteful incompetence for a spammer, this points to a single
source, either a single spam gang, or a single spamming tool bundled
with addresses.

> So: ntlworld's spam-strategy appears to be, zero server-side filtering and
> increased bandwidth [...] This of course means
> that ntlworld addies are particularly valuable to spammers, as they know
> anything sent to them will get through.

We get much more to various Demon addresses, which are efficiently
filtered on the Demon servers. Having used them for years on Usenet
and elsewhere counts for a lot more than the filtering. I'm sure
many spammers are just sending to every address they can lay their
hands on.

That being said, NTL most probably did have an insider or two who
sold NTL addresses (this is not unheard of, sadly). I have a call in
to NTL AUP team to investigate a spam that used a form of address
(@dtn.ntl.com) that we didn't even know existed, and therefore could
not have revealed. Not that I expect a result.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
Any sentence that begins 'Humans would never be so stupid as to...'
is very probably wrong. - David M. Palmer

 

[Ant]

"Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...

> Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM ***
> in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement for,
> or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain single
> line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.

"In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
look at message bodies.

 

[Pekka P. Pirinen]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:10:39 +0100, "chopsmcp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My ntlworld addy gets 100+ spam messages a day. It's not that hard to cope
> with; I use spampal & OE's filters and most of it doesn't make it past the
> server. But here's the point: all the spam I get is To/CC:'d exclusively to
> ntlworld addresses.

We get a lot of that, too. Since revealing the addresses using To/Cc
is wasteful incompetence for a spammer, this points to a single
source, either a single spam gang, or a single spamming tool bundled
with addresses.

> So: ntlworld's spam-strategy appears to be, zero server-side filtering and
> increased bandwidth [...] This of course means
> that ntlworld addies are particularly valuable to spammers, as they know
> anything sent to them will get through.

We get much more to various Demon addresses, which are efficiently
filtered on the Demon servers. Having used them for years on Usenet
and elsewhere counts for a lot more than the filtering. I'm sure
many spammers are just sending to every address they can lay their
hands on.

That being said, NTL most probably did have an insider or two who
sold NTL addresses (this is not unheard of, sadly). I have a call in
to NTL AUP team to investigate a spam that used a form of address
(@dtn.ntl.com) that we didn't even know existed, and therefore could
not have revealed. Not that I expect a result.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
Any sentence that begins 'Humans would never be so stupid as to...'
is very probably wrong. - David M. Palmer

 

[Ant]

"Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...

> Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM ***
> in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement for,
> or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain single
> line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.

"In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
look at message bodies.

 

[Pekka P. Pirinen]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:10:39 +0100, "chopsmcp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My ntlworld addy gets 100+ spam messages a day. It's not that hard to cope
> with; I use spampal & OE's filters and most of it doesn't make it past the
> server. But here's the point: all the spam I get is To/CC:'d exclusively to
> ntlworld addresses.

We get a lot of that, too. Since revealing the addresses using To/Cc
is wasteful incompetence for a spammer, this points to a single
source, either a single spam gang, or a single spamming tool bundled
with addresses.

> So: ntlworld's spam-strategy appears to be, zero server-side filtering and
> increased bandwidth [...] This of course means
> that ntlworld addies are particularly valuable to spammers, as they know
> anything sent to them will get through.

We get much more to various Demon addresses, which are efficiently
filtered on the Demon servers. Having used them for years on Usenet
and elsewhere counts for a lot more than the filtering. I'm sure
many spammers are just sending to every address they can lay their
hands on.

That being said, NTL most probably did have an insider or two who
sold NTL addresses (this is not unheard of, sadly). I have a call in
to NTL AUP team to investigate a spam that used a form of address
(@dtn.ntl.com) that we didn't even know existed, and therefore could
not have revealed. Not that I expect a result.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
Any sentence that begins 'Humans would never be so stupid as to...'
is very probably wrong. - David M. Palmer

 

[Ant]

"Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...

> Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM ***
> in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement for,
> or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain single
> line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.

"In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
look at message bodies.

 

[Pekka P. Pirinen]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:10:39 +0100, "chopsmcp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My ntlworld addy gets 100+ spam messages a day. It's not that hard to cope
> with; I use spampal & OE's filters and most of it doesn't make it past the
> server. But here's the point: all the spam I get is To/CC:'d exclusively to
> ntlworld addresses.

We get a lot of that, too. Since revealing the addresses using To/Cc
is wasteful incompetence for a spammer, this points to a single
source, either a single spam gang, or a single spamming tool bundled
with addresses.

> So: ntlworld's spam-strategy appears to be, zero server-side filtering and
> increased bandwidth [...] This of course means
> that ntlworld addies are particularly valuable to spammers, as they know
> anything sent to them will get through.

We get much more to various Demon addresses, which are efficiently
filtered on the Demon servers. Having used them for years on Usenet
and elsewhere counts for a lot more than the filtering. I'm sure
many spammers are just sending to every address they can lay their
hands on.

That being said, NTL most probably did have an insider or two who
sold NTL addresses (this is not unheard of, sadly). I have a call in
to NTL AUP team to investigate a spam that used a form of address
(@dtn.ntl.com) that we didn't even know existed, and therefore could
not have revealed. Not that I expect a result.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
Any sentence that begins 'Humans would never be so stupid as to...'
is very probably wrong. - David M. Palmer

 

[Ant]

"Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...

> Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM ***
> in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement for,
> or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain single
> line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.

"In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
look at message bodies.

 

[Graham]

"Ant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...
>
> > Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM
***
> > in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement
for,
> > or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain
single
> > line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.
>
> "In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
> of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
> used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
> look at message bodies.
>
>

Last night I sent 2 emails from one of my freeserve accounts, one with
'test' in the subject and the other with 'test' in the body. The subject one
was deliverd, I am still waiting for the body one.

 

[Graham]

"Ant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...
>
> > Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM
***
> > in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement
for,
> > or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain
single
> > line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.
>
> "In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
> of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
> used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
> look at message bodies.
>
>

Last night I sent 2 emails from one of my freeserve accounts, one with
'test' in the subject and the other with 'test' in the body. The subject one
was deliverd, I am still waiting for the body one.

Graham


%Profound_observation%

 

[Graham]

"Ant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham" wrote in alt.spam ...
>
> > Freeserve recently started to mark my mail from gisajob.com as *** SPAM
***
> > in the subject field. Does anyone know if this method is a replacement
for,
> > or an addition to Freeserves failure to deliver mail with certain
single
> > line message bodies, as a crude way of filtering w32Netsky variants.
>
> "In addition to", I believe. The only other crude filtering I'm aware
> of, is the rejection or dropping of emails with certain subject lines
> used by viruses. "Test" and "Hello" are examples. I don't think they
> look at message bodies.
>
>

Last night I sent 2 emails from one of my freeserve accounts, one with
'test' in the subject and the other with 'test' in the body. The subject one
was deliverd, I am still waiting for the body one.

Graham


%Profound_observation%