[pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- From: "Ekhart GEORGI (last name last)" <Ekhart.GEORGI@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 19:38:21 +0300
Hi Eric
> Ekhart, to your suggestion to use a filter - I already do.
Then all the returned mail should already be automatically going to the
trash and not annoying you as you described.
> The computer that I receive all the spam on is the one
> I use at work.
Messages about returned mail is not spam; it's legitimate mail caused by
spam sent in your name.
> It is on a LAN with wireless connection to the Internet.
>
> We have 18 machines all networked but I feel the weak
> point of the network is that 15 of them are used by our
> medley of students. I need to share files with our other two
> admin machines so can't hide access to mine. I have
> controlled access to sensitive files per password. Also my
> machine acts as the printer server for our Sharp digital
> printer/copier.
Your email address is probably not being passed on to spammers due to
your network architecture or security. Did you post it on a website?
> On my XP machine I use Firefox and Eudora and have set
> Eudora's filter to trash the spam. Trouble is - they vary the
> subject line and To addresses so that the filter doesn't block
> them. My firewall is Zone Alarm Pro.
Homemade filters are useless against spam; they only work against and
with legitimate mail such as the returned mail messages. Only Bayesian
filtering is effective against spam.
> I've tried Spam blockers but training them to recognise all
> sources takes way more time than just to moving them all into
> the trash bin.
Spam blocking is more or less counterproductive; even one blocked
legitimate message, a false positive, is usually worse than a large
amount of spam and time spent pressing the Delete button. Good spam
filtering is much better than spam blocking and is based on Bayesian
filtering. A good Bayesian spam filter like in Thunderbird is trained
within less than 5 minutes and catches more than 99% of spam with
virtually no false positives.
> Changing my email address and all the possible business
> related emails I might miss - even after notifying all in my
> addressbook - is not a risk I wish to take.
My suggestion about new email addresses was to avoid getting more spam
and to avoid more spammers starting to send spam in your name; i didn't
mean that you should stop using the old address.
> I note that the article in Wikepedia URL you supplied treads as
> follows:-
>
> "By periodically performing an Internet search for one's own
> email address, and if necessary getting the appropriate website
> administrator to remove it".
>
> My question is, how do I perform and Internet search for my own
> address?
By simply putting it into Google.
I'm not sure you understood or answered the following parts of my message:
> Contrary to what the subject says, this returned mail is not spam; it's
> legitimate mail caused by spam sent in your name. Be happy it's coming
> from automated systems and not angry individuals. The former enables an
> easy automated response; the latter requires, at least in principle, a
> personal response and often lengthy discussion with many different
> individuals.
> Installing Thunderbird or any other good email program with a spam
> filter will probably be able to also deal with such incorrect, "spoofed"
> returned mail. In addition, it's easy to make a filter that
> automatically sends all returned mail into the trash. You can then check
> the trash a few hours after sending an important mail to see if you got
> a message saying there was a problem in delivering it. Tell us if you
> want help making such a filter.
> You can easily get many new free email addresses by subscribing at any
> number of free email providers. I'm guessing that your problem, Eric,
> was not caused by you telling your main address to a company but by
> posting it in forums or on webpages. I even seem to dimly remember you
> talking about posting it on your own site.
> The operative verb in the question is "get" not "use". The spammer "got"
> i.e. was able to use your address by harvesting it from a public source
> such as a webpage or by turning into a zombie a computer that belongs to
> an acquaintance who has your address on that computer. Another big
> problem is people who put addresses into the "To" or "CC" fields when
> sending several copies of an e-mail instead of using Bcc.
--
-------list-services-below-----------
Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig>
Freelists login at http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
List archives at http://www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers
PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig
Latest news live feeds at http://modecideas.com/indexhomenews.htm?sig
Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.
- Follow-Ups:
- [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- From: Scott McNay
- References:
- [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- From: Eric Furman
Other related posts:
- » [pchelpers] Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- » [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- From: Scott McNay
- [pchelpers] Re: Mountains of spam
- From: Eric Furman