Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Derrell.Lipman]

Martin Geisler <gimpster-dated-1017943868.6210de@gimpster.com> writes:

> My from-address has been tagged with a date for this post.

A few people on this list tag their from-address with a date.  Although I
understand why and how you're using it, those of us who use BBDB and have BBDB
configured to update the database with new email addresses when we receive
messages, are burdened with this technique.  Each time I receive a new message
from you or one of your "cohorts" (not to be interpreted negatively), I get a
new address entry for you in my BBDB.  In your case, since you haven't posted
all that much, I have only:

    gimpster-dated-1017943868.6210de@gimpster.com,
    gimpster-dated-1016048623.841888@gimpster.com,
    gimpster-dated-1015950817.066d6c@gimpster.com,
    gimpster-dated-1016471210.b20ac2@gimpster.com

For some others, BBDB has many more unique addresses.

I figured you might be interested in a downside of your technique.  From my
point of view, it's certainly not ideal.

Cheers,

Derrell

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Steven E. Harris]

Martin Geisler <gimpster-dated-1017943868.6210de@gimpster.com> writes:

> TMDA will only accept mails to that address for 3 days - after that
> period it will return the mail to the sender, and ask him or her to
> /confirm/ themselves by replying.

Does this mean that the first three day's worth of spam get through
unchecked? Does the white-list filter kick in only after three days?

-- 
Steven E. Harris        :: seharris@raytheon.com
Raytheon                :: http://www.raytheon.com

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Steven E. Harris]

Martin Geisler <gimpster-dated-1017946441.e7e673@gimpster.com> writes:

> That removes the constantly-changing parts from the addresses before
> they're added to BBDB.

Your fix brings up a question about spammers fighting TMDA: Why don't
they just strip similar regexes off of addresses they find? I was
curious about your "real" address, and checked your Web site to
confirm that, yes, your real address is your TMDA-augmented one minus
the "-dated-..." part. Won't the spammers figure out how to beat TMDA
if TMDA continues to use such a predictable munging format?

-- 
Steven E. Harris        :: seharris@raytheon.com
Raytheon                :: http://www.raytheon.com

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Martin Geisler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1090 bytes --]

"Steven E. Harris" <seharris@raytheon.com> writes:

> Martin Geisler <gimpster-dated-1017943868.6210de@gimpster.com> writes:
> 
>> TMDA will only accept mails to that address for 3 days - after that
>> period it will return the mail to the sender, and ask him or her to
>> /confirm/ themselves by replying.
> 
> Does this mean that the first three day's worth of spam get through
> unchecked?

Yes - the idea is, that the spammers wont be that quick. But I've
actually changed the default from 5 days to just 3 days because I
received a SPAM mail after just 4 days.

> Does the white-list filter kick in only after three days?

You can configure all this - the dated addresses I use in newsgroups
expire after 3 days. If you're on my whitelist, then you mail will
always be accepted, regardless of the address you send it to.

-- 
Martin Geisler                       My GnuPG Key: 0xF7F6B57B

See my homepage at http://www.gimpster.com/ for:
PHP Weather => Shows the current weather on your webpage.
PHP Shell   => A telnet-connection (almost :-) in a PHP page.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 231 bytes --]

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Steven E. Harris]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Handling dated addresses would cost additional effort, and would
> only allow them to reach people who have already gone to extra
> effort to avoid receiving spam.  Those people are very unlikely to
> become customers.

Good point. It's a strange battle, fighting against an enemy too
indifferent to aim its gun at moving targets.

-- 
Steven E. Harris        :: seharris@raytheon.com
Raytheon                :: http://www.raytheon.com

Re: OT: Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Adam P.]

Oliver Much <uzs7ci@uni-bonn.de> writes:
>> That advice seems to be based on a wrong assumption that spiders /
>> harvesters don't see the Reply-To: field in postings to lists: even
>> searching groups in Google (and going to "Original Format") reveals
>> all headers... 
>
> It's based on the assumption that spammers only collect the XOVER
> information, which usually doesn't contain the Reply-To:. And if
> you really believe spammers would let a literate monkey collect
> adresses via Google manually, you wouldn't munge your From: and
> so potentially waste bandwidth and postmaster worktime nor 
> hiding cowardly your realname in an extended header.

Why "collect manually"?  A simple spider can do that.
Why "hiding cowardly"?  Anyone can see it...

Anyway, this is really getting OT -- my apologies for wasting the
bandwidth.  No more postings from me in this thread.

        Adam
-- 
Name and address in X-Real...

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Martin Geisler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3229 bytes --]

Roland Mas <roland.mas@free.fr> writes:

> Martin Geisler, 2002-04-01 20:25:28 +0200 :
> 
>> It's a very elegant solution and it's extremely efficient.
> 
> Mmm.  I'm not that sure about it.  The way I see it (correct me if I'm
> wrong) is that you double the amount of bulk email circulating on the
> network. 

That's actually correct. TMDA sends a confirmation, Exim talks to
yahoo (or wherever the mail come from) and is told that the address
doesn't exist.

> Besides, as you remarked, your requests for confirmation will most
> probably go to some invalid address, which will trigger an error
> somewhere, or cause an endless loop, or whatnot. You have gained a
> little tranquility for yourself, but how many postmasters are you
> going to drown under bogus error messages?

Only one: myself :-) I've had to configure Exim to ignore errors
generated from the bounce messages TMDA sends, because of all those
invalid addresses.

> Even if you weren't targeted by any spammer (lucky you), legitimate
> e-mails would generate two messages with no useful content
> whatsoever (which, even if not spam, could be classified as bulk
> e-mail).

The mails sent by TMDA actually have a Precedence: bulk header in
them - I don't know if it makes any difference.
 
>   On a personal side, I find this system to be completely obnoxious
> when you're at the other end of it.  When I want to send an e-mail to
> someone, I don't want to receive an "Are you sure you want to send an
> e-mail to this person?" message.

I understand that this can be seen as an annoyance, but if TMDA is
configured properly, then you'll only have to confirm once.

>  But then again, I don't use Windows and its continuous "Are you
> sure?" pop-ups.

Neither do I :-)

> Oh, and don't brandish the white-list thingy at me like it's the
> ultimate weapon. I, as a sender, have to authentify as a non-spammer
> at least once for every person I want to send an email to (and for
> some reason, my first contact with TMDA involved *three*
> confirmations for the same person). That's very un-scalable.

The problem is, that you have to configure TMDA yourself to append
people to the whitelist - it's not done automatically.

>   Don't misunderstand me: from the recipient's point of view, TMDA
> seems flawless.  It's just that for everybody else (except the
> spammer), it's a burden.  I for one won't impose such a burden on my
> potential e-mail correspondents.  I'll keep Spamassassin :-)

It's basically a new way of thinking about e-mail: it now becomes your
responsibility to prove that you're not a spammer, it's no longer my
problem. It might sound rude, but if people *really* want to talk to
me, then they'll want to go through the confirmation process.

It would be the same if I had a secretary to handle my mail - you have
to talk to the secretary first before she will allow you to reach me.
This is just an automated secretary :-)

-- 
Martin Geisler                       My GnuPG Key: 0xF7F6B57B

See my homepage at http://www.gimpster.com/ for:
PHP Weather => Shows the current weather on your webpage.
PHP Shell   => A telnet-connection (almost :-) in a PHP page.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 231 bytes --]

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[Ted Zlatanov]

D. Goel <deego@glue.umd.edu> writes:

> then you wouldn't have to use dates at all?  (and save us bbdb users
> from those add-email-id prompts :) ?)

(contributed by someone else on the Gnus mailing list, I think :)

(defun my-bbdb-always-add-addresses-func ()
  (cond
   ((string-match
  ".\\(.\\)dated\\1[0-9]\\{9,10\\}\\.[0-9a-fA-F]\\{2,16\\}@"
          net)
    'never)
   (t nil)))
   
(setq bbdb-always-add-addresses 'my-bbdb-always-add-addresses-func)

Hope that helps
Ted


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Re: Using false-From -address to avoid spam...

[lawrence mitchell]

A. L. Meyers wrote:

[...]

> (setq gnus-posting-styles 
>       (message-this-is-news 
>       (address tmda-dated-address))) 
> 
> does not work, at least not with Oort Gnus, as the functions
> message-this-is-news and address apparently do not exist.

You probably want that to be

| (setq gnus-posting-styles
|       '(((message-news-p)
|          (address (tmda-dated-address)))))


-- 
lawrence mitchell <wence@gmx.li>