Nice, thanks. I'd add that I also do a traceroute on the sender's IP and send abuse notification to the closest relaying isp as well, particularly since many spammers now have IPs that don't look up to anything. This characteristic, too, is used by some server applications: they won't accept mail from IPs that don't look up to the same name they're identified with. This is a nice feature but kills the server, very resource intensive. I also noted an email error log recently where msn.com had refused receipt of every email from a shopping cart where the user had included a space in their email name (hence proving in a very superficial way it wasn't a proper email address.) The orders don't get forwarded to msn any more! I sure envy this guy getting 5 - 10 spam mails a day though, I often get five that arrive ten times each! THAT's the filtering I'd really like, "Trash anything in triplicate+". However, the problem really isn't what I get, it is truly what bandwidth all legit transmissions need to wade through to get the message delivered. So, while filtering is all very nice, I try to take the extra effort to have the sender's service revoked and identity blacklisted. BTW, Interarchy has some excellent tools for effectuating this goal, including "traffic watching" which reveals ICQ origin IPs as well, great way to finally convince fellows who continually add you (or your wife) to their list so they get through the positive filtering available there. -m quoth Geoffrey Heard (gheard@SURF.NET.AU) on 1/14/01 4:09 PM: >Some useful information about spams and how to tackle the problem. > ><http://www.faughnan.com/spam.html> > >Cheers, >Geoff Michael Slavin /o\~/o\~/o\~/o\ Bx 553 Baldwin City, KS 66006-0553 theWebster *** electronic internet publishing and graphic services <http://theWebster.com> (everywhere) fax 785 594-4193 ICQ# 34589295
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 23:01:54 AEDT