Author Topic: Article about Effing Spam  (Read 13518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Amanda_931

  • Guest
Article about Effing Spam
« on: May 22, 2006, 05:24:37 AM »
(one of the few substitute words I use--partly because it's not too common in the U.S.--I probably learned it reading murder mysteries from around the world--hope that use in other English-Speaking countries is not considered as highly offensive as the real thing)

It kind of looks like the reason we're getting spammy messages on the list is that the regular e-mail is becoming more protected (mine isn't!--and I think I'll disrecommend the Norton anti-spam--unless you want to block each incoming spam address--and my experience is that they are all different so who cares--either that or there's a huge explosion on our ISP).

http://news.com.com/The+fight+against+V1gra+and+other+spam/2100-7348_3-6074727.html?tag=newsmap

But spammers have hardly given up, and as they improve and adapt their techniques, network managers must still face down the pill-pushers, get-rich-quick artists and others who use billions of unwanted e-mail messages to troll for income. "For the end user, spam isn't that much of a problem anymore," said Matt Sergeant, MessageLabs' senior antispam technologist. "But for the network, and for people like us, it definitely is."
.........
During a recent meeting at the company's New York office, in Midtown Manhattan, Sergeant and a colleague, Nick Johnson, an antispam developer visiting from MessageLabs' headquarters in Gloucester, England, expressed both amusement and respect over the sheer creativity of the world's most prolific spammers, who continue to dump hundreds of millions of junk messages into the e-mail stream each day.
.............
But even if it works, the amount of spam [in the classic Nigeran mode] it would eliminate from the overall deluge would be negligible by almost any measure, and Sergeant and his team will still be forced into encounters with "C i a l i s" and "st0x" and "Viiiiagra." The researchers are certain that the last, with multiple I's shoved together, is the handiwork of Leo Kuvayev.

Kuvayev is No. 3 on the list of the world's most prolific and notorious spammers, maintained at Spamhaus.org, a London-based watchdog group. The listing is not undeserved.

In Massachusetts last October, a Suffolk Superior Court judge, D. Lloyd MacDonald, levied $37 million in penalties on Kuvayev and six other people after deciding against them--in absentia--in a lawsuit brought by the state's attorney general, Tom Reilly.

The suit contended that the defendants, who once worked out of Newton, Mass., and Boston, used "a complicated web of Internet sites and domain names selling a variety of illegal products," including counterfeit drugs, pirated software, pornography and phony designer watches.

Spam watchers say they believe Kuvayev is now in Russia--still very much in business and employing a team of spam writers to continue poking holes in the world's filters.
..........
Sergeant said that just two men--Kuvayev and Alex Blood, a Ukrainian who is rated the No. 1 junk mailer by Spamhaus--hammer the world's e-mail systems with five million messages an hour. "You're talking about being responsible for something like 10 percent of all e-mail on the Internet," Sergeant said, "from just two guys."
« Last Edit: May 22, 2006, 05:28:09 AM by Amanda_931 »

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2006, 07:16:16 PM »
Don't hold your breath, but I think I got that last persistant one.  Had to block about 1/2 of Korea but I think I got him.  


bartholomew

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2006, 10:43:17 AM »
I'm guessing the South half. Probably not many internet connections in the North.

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2006, 08:46:29 PM »
I think so, Bart.  I gotta whole lotta Seoul. :-/

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2006, 06:09:39 AM »
Spam keeps coming in - even porn spam - seems to be around 4 to 6 per day.  

Proxy servers seem to be used - many times IP address does not match e-mail address - many from .ru

This means that most of our blocking of guest postings is in vain as that server is usually random - maybe even a virused computer that doesn't even know what it is doing.

When the quantity becomes excessive we will block guest postings.  Until then we will try to maintain.  Sorry if some get by for too long.  We can't monitor the site at all hours.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2006, 06:10:40 AM by glenn-k »


Amanda_931

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2006, 04:54:17 AM »
Yuck.

Mind you I get at least 10% spam through my regular ISP's mail system, pretty normal, according to that article.  Hotmail has more, but it's usually confined in junk mail.  Just at the moment I'm using Norton's spam filter for the ISP, which can only block known addresses.  It seems like a truly dumb way to go, because they never seem to be from the same real address.

I have learned to ignore it--and never respond.  It's still annoying.

On the other hand, more aggressive spam filters tend to weed out letters from friends--I have a bunch who send out stories that interest them to massive mailing lists.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2006, 04:56:11 AM by Amanda_931 »

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2006, 03:24:00 PM »
Any feelings on the spam issue?   :-/  Poll above.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2006, 03:24:24 PM by glenn-k »

peg_688

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2006, 08:23:11 PM »
 I voted but IMO you should move your poll , or in some way add that , there is a poll here , to the subject line on the home page so folk's know your askin for input.

 Makum register it's not that hard and then they'll be part of something and easier , sort of / maybe to block ::)

 Good luck, PEG

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2006, 08:40:36 PM »
I thought I'd do this and let it go a few days or week here -- this topic covers it pretty well.  Not a big rush yet but I don't think most members want the forum trashed with porn offers either and there has been more of that lately.

It looks like stopping guest posting will stop most of the spam that we are currently getting.


jraabe

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2006, 06:39:13 AM »
I think the poll is a good idea Glenn.

You seem to be kicking more of this out than I am. I delete one a day or so. The problem will come when we aren't on top of it for a few days.

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2006, 07:39:21 AM »
The poll is running in favor of making guests register before posting at this time.

I got 4 today already.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 07:41:35 AM by glenn-k »

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2006, 12:34:49 PM »
New problem --- In blocking spammers, I accidently blocked Jonesy too.  Fortunately he was able to Skype my and get taken off the blocked list.  The problem here is that he couldn't get back to the forum at all - If someone needed my e-mail to notify me they wouldn't likely have it.

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2006, 12:42:35 PM »
I found some of Cecelia's IP number group was blocked too so removed guest posting ability and freed all banned IP numbers.  Sorry to anyone else blocked because of  the spammers.

Guests will have to register to post comments or spam now.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 12:53:41 PM by glenn-k »

deertracks

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2006, 08:07:08 PM »
As a new member I think limiting posts to members only is a great idea. It takes just minutes to register and when you first find this website with its wealth of info you are usually reading for quite a while before you are ready to ask questions. There are bad apples everywhere....I say BLOCK 'EM!
deertracks


glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2006, 08:16:02 PM »
Thanks for the input, deertracks.  It is done-- now lets see if it solves the problem. :)
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 08:16:23 PM by glenn-k »

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2006, 09:27:21 PM »
Update -- the first spammer signed up as a member today.

I ran his name and email and banned him before his first posting --- I will regularly run checks on new members as I have time.


Double update --- make that 2 banned new members.

Both were drug and or porn dealers.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 09:53:39 PM by glenn-k »

Amanda_931

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2006, 06:18:12 AM »
Wonderful.

Why do they do this?

(they get paid to do it, or not quite the same, it's profitable to the drugs/porn industry, it's fun to watch Glenn thrash about, or what the heck, bored children, or they can.)

What happened to the poll?

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2006, 06:47:52 AM »
After I found out Jonesy was blocked I stopped the poll, blocked guest postings and released the blocked IP addresses.  The poll was about 80% for blocking guest postings to help fight spammers.

Now it is harder for them to get in and it is easier for me to block the individual spammer without affecting thousands of IP addresses.  Only the more industrious ones will register - I hope-  

I can research their registration - ban and remove them - block their email from registering - block their username- - remove them and ban them if as a member they post a spam.  Hopefully this will be more effective than trying to block a guest.   Some of the blocking features didn't work on guests.


glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2006, 04:54:58 PM »
Another spammer member removed and emailed the option to prove he is not a spammer.

Graphic verification is now activated.  This will add about 5 seconds to the sign in process but stop bot's from registering.

Amanda_931

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2006, 06:00:11 PM »
I was wondering if the graphic verification was an option for us.

(until some 14-year old figures out how to bypass it)


glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2006, 07:18:50 PM »
I learned about it studying up on it on the admin. help board.  We have it easy most of the time -- one got about 200 in just a short time - seems she said an hour or so.

Note that some of these are very hard to verify so we may get an occasional spam posted.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2006, 07:21:04 PM by glenn-k »

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2006, 06:25:02 AM »
I am currently removing and blocking an average of 2 spammer members per day, but have no guest spam postings and spammer members are easy to locate and remove even before they post.  

A few may slip by but will only get one posting session before removed.

jraabe

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2006, 06:10:50 PM »
Where would we be without Glenn?  :-/

Three cheers for the SpamMaster!  :D

Hip, Hip, etc.

peg_688

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2006, 06:28:27 PM »
Quote

Three cheers for the SpamMaster!  :D



   [size=24]    Yah spam master ;) [/size]

  


  

  

glenn-k

  • Guest
Re: Article about Effing Spam
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2006, 06:33:27 PM »
Now I'm getting hungry. :-/

Thanks - guys ---

It does seem a little nicer when we aren't violated by the spammers everyday.


 

Templates: 5: index (default), Ads (default), Portal (default), Display (default), GenericControls (default).
Sub templates: 12: init, html_above, adsheaders_above, body_above, adsindex_above, portal_above, main, portal_below, adsindex_below, body_below, adsheaders_below, html_below.
Language files: 3: SPortal.english (default), index+Modifications.english (default), Ads.english (default).
Style sheets: 1: portal (default).
Files included: 36 - 1105KB. (show)
Cache hits: 12: 0.00166s for 40,689 bytes (show)
Queries used: 25.

[Show Queries]