spammers?

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:48:04 GMT, Jim Dumas

[email protected]!mindspring.com said:

Pete wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

14] Never CC or Fwd mail.

Quoted message said:

*Errrernt!* You just got the _buzzer_ and hooked off the stage, Pete.

Quoted message said:

You're only as good as the weakest link in your circle of trusted friends.

Err yes

Quoted message said:

Moreover, what happens when someone in this circle of friends gets a virus with email harvester.
You're SOL.

Wont make a difference. It has happened in the past. When ever a mail header is downloaded [assuming
that the subject line is as I specified] then if I do not recognise the sender, it is deleted. If
there is an attachment and it is not referred to in the body of the mail. Again it is deleted. Since
I do not use a standard mail client, it is unlikely that any virus will affect me in such a way that
it can propogate. The only awareness of any virus I get is that the mail client immedialy closes
down but that is only because the majority of virus manufacturers assume client parameters and do
not cater for all.

Quoted message said:

With all those rules, you better just buy stamps and forget it,

I work a lot from home [remote] and communicate via the web\mail etc with the company I work for.
There has not been a problem for .......... a very long time. In fact the last virus I got was the
Ha Ha [Snow white] circa Xmas 01? but then I made the mistake of using OE :-)) AVG got it though. So
it was not a big deal.

Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Randy Sigman said:

Pete <[email hidden]> wrote: [snippage]

Quoted message said:

I have only received 3 spam mails in the last three weeks and not a single incidence of a virus
for over 8 months. I am begining to find this subject quite amusing.

Quoted message said:

The only way to be spam free is to adopt the recommended techniques. As soon as you do - then you
will see the difference almost immediately. And the best thing of all, there is no way for the
spammers to get arround it.

[22 rules snipped]

Quoted message said:

There is a far superior system. Do not connect your computer to the internet, ever. I say that
tongue in cheek, but quite frankly, it is the only way to be sure one's email address does not ever
attract any spams. Randy

True - but none get to me since they harvest 'dormant' addresses and eventually those Providers that
do not carry anti spam procedures will chock up. In one account I know there are over 4,000 spam
mails. I am waiting to see what happens :-))

Pete

Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Wes Groleau said:

Pete said:

I have only received 3 spam mails in the last three weeks

Quoted message said:

Then you are fortunate enough to have an address that doesn't fit any of the 'guessing' algorithms
that spammers use.

On the contrary, the address you see in this post is harvested frequently.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and not a single incidence of a virus for over 8 months. I

Quoted message said:

Then either your ISP is filtering them or you have NO acquaintances using Windows.

My ISP does provide filtering.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only way to be spam free is to adopt the recommended techniques. As soon as you do - then you
will see the difference almost immediately. And the best thing of all, there is no way for the
spammers to get arround it.

Quoted message said:

I've used all these techniques. They make a big difference but they don't make one spam-free. And
they all have disadvantages. Some of the disadvantages are worth it (to me) and some are not. For
the latter, I gave up that particular technique.

Hmmmm.........perhaps it wasn't 'tight' enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1] Have two or three mail accounts that you can access, if you wish, either by pop3 or web based
interface. Select one [the one provided as a matter of course by your access provider] as
your main mail facillity. With this one - adopt the following policies:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. I had three. I gave NO ONE the "main" address. I gave friends a despammed.com address
which forwarded to the 'real' address (after the filtering set up by them). I used myrealbox.com
on Usenet because that one had some filtering but still (allegedly) allowed me to write my own
rules for what their conservative filters didn't catch. Dropped them because the rule mechanism
didn't work.

oops

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[a] Never ever quote it either on the web, usenet or any other electronic communication medium.
Allow access to it only to friends, relatives and trusted business contacts but never quote
it in a direct e-mail in the body. Not even

Quoted message said:

If you give your "real" address to ONE novice Windows user, in three months hundreds of them will
have it. Half of those will be forwarding urban legends that they received WITH your address inside
in an unsnipped header from an earlier forwarding.

That is usually the way of things. I only use my 'main' account for sending to 'trusted parties' who
are not novices. All others only know of one of my 'other addresses' which I either access via the
web to select those I want or have forwarded. So when my stupid daughter sends me a joke from work -
which has also been sent to a dozen other people
- it never gets to my main account. No she does not have my main address. I am not that daft - yet.

[quote="Quoted message"][quote="Quoted message"][b] Never quote it on commercial forms or surveys.[/quote][/quote]

Quoted message said:

Bingo! On the paper side, I still get junk mail where the second address line is literally "NO
JUNK MAIL"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2] The other mail accounts - should be:

[c] Used when it is necessary to have a vailid mail account as a means of validating entitlement
or identity to acquire internet service facillities.

Quoted message said:

See www.sneakemail.com

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[d] Use one only for use on usenet and do not do so without
[snip]
[e] Use one for web based applications such as form filling

Quoted message said:

Currently I have a Unix account that allows me to do things like [email hidden] AFAIK (I
don't look at most of the spam) address-harvesters don't pick those up. Only the almost certainly
NOT spam or viruses are forwarded to my 'real' address.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

5] Never use 'Rich Text' or HTML format for creating or responding to mail.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't help me at all. But I sure wish the rest of the world would comply.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

6] Never download or accept an attachment unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

Quoted message said:

Obviously. However, if you need this rule, then you ARE getting spam or viruses to apply
this rule to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

7] Never download a mail unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

Quoted message said:

i.e., never accept help with technical questions or diabetes questions from anyone except your face-to-
face acquaintances. Require all your customers (if you have any) to use snail mail for support.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

8] Avoid using clients that are the most popular. ....

Quoted message said:

Even if that means giving up techniques you have mentioned that aren't supported by what's
available for your O.S. ? (or do you suggest I give up all my anti-hacker features just so I can
use a Windoze e-mail client?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

9] Never ever use the Windoze Address Book facility or any other address book that is 'built
into' your mail client. Use a standalone software and copy/paste addresses. There

Quoted message said:

I don't use an address book at all. If I did, I certainly would not pick one that is inconvenient
in order to avoid seeing spam that I already never see.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are a lot of free ones available. Or create your own.

Quoted message said:

HA! 99% of the viruses come from computers whose owners are incapable of creating address book
software.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

10] Never ever use the 'REPLY' facillity in your client. Most automatically insert 'Re:' as the
first characters in the subject line. If you do then ammend the subject line to delete 'Re'
before sending.

Quoted message said:

Please explain how typing in (or pasting) an address has a greater anti-spam effect than allowing
the client to auto-paste the SAME address.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

11] Never download a mail with 'Re' 'Hello' Adv Fwd [to mention a few] in the subject line and
avoid doing so yourself.

Quoted message said:

Don't receive "re" or "fwd" ? In other words, tell your friends (if you have any left by now)
"Don't bother trying to communicate with me unless you're willing to obey all MY anti-spam
policies.

Quoted message said:

The others go to /dev/null very early in the filtering process.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

12] Never ever respond to a spammer or follow a link provided in the body of the mail if you have
inadvertantly downloaded it.

Quoted message said:

Wise advice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

13] If you complain to a spammer then do not use youe main mail address to send the complaint.
Use one of the others

Quoted message said:

Don't complain to spammers.

Quoted message said:

Ignore them if you don't have the and talent to complain to someone who can actually do something
about them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

14] Never CC or Fwd mail.

Quoted message said:

Doesn't stop you from getting spam or viruses. Merely gets you into mailboxes of people who are
following your rule #11

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

15] Never send unsolicited mail yourself - to private individuals and do not use your main
account for 'cold mailing' to others. Not even reputable businesses.

Quoted message said:

Doesn't stop you from receiving the [censored]--but it's certainly the civilized way to behave.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

16] Use an AV product - and there are free ones about - which will scan boot up and all mail
inbound and outbound.

Quoted message said:

If you receive "not a single incidence of a virus for over 8 months", why bother?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

17] Use a browser cleaner such as Spybot/Adaware every other day to remove trackers etc. Also
remove Cookies/History every week.

Quoted message said:

I accept cookies only from specific sites and discard them on browser exit. I never take spy-ware,
so I don't need to remove it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

18] Disable or remove all internet protocols from your system tha are not essential. Such as
IPS/SPX and remove Netbios from Networking if you do not need it. For usenet/web and mail you
only need TCP/IP
19] Use a firewall - there are free ones available such as Kerio.
20] Use a 'Port Listener' - again free - to monitor what ports are bing accessed.

Quoted message said:

My firewall blocks everything except protocols specifically allowed. And blocks IP addresses owned
by outfits that refuse to (or can't) shut down their hackers. It also logs what's going on, in, or
out. (actually, it's supposed to, but after a recent upgrade, logging seems to be broken.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

21] Never leave your equipment unattended, on and connected.

Quoted message said:

I have my reasons for leaving it on. But since it's dial-up, I don't let it keep the phone busy round-the-
clock. :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

22] Unload all Network capability if not in use.

Quoted message said:

See above.

Quoted message said:

To make a long story short (he should have said that an hour ago) your "minimum" contains items
that would be inconvenient for me (and possibly others) with NO benefit. It contains others that
would definitely help the spam/virus problem--at the cost of telling my parents and siblings "Since
you are computer illiterate, I don't want to hear from you again."

Quoted message said:

To make it even shorter: _Y_M_M_V_

Pete said:

Wont make a difference. It has happened in the past. When ever a mail header is downloaded
[assuming that the subject line is as I specified] then if I do not recognise the sender, it is
deleted.

Then you have no way to qualify new contacts, right? If I sent you an eamil with your aspen addy,
would it get tossed like spam?

One rule from my mailfilter Chinanet IP block, (Alan Ralsky spammer in Michigan, he's the US worst
one with lawsuits up the wazoo), is:

DENY=^Received:.*\[218\.(66|78|79|80|81|82|83|242)\.

This kills two spams a day that get through Earthlink BrightMail filters. It kills on the known
originator's internet address. Quite effective single rule killer.

In any case, I think you're deluding yourself about your security,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

Randy Sigman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wes Groleau wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Anyone want to do a controlled study?

Hint: this was a joke. A controlled study would mean actually sending spams both ways and measuring
which one makes more money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact that we're all still spammed to death no matter all your ingenious schemes and thoughts
might make that study very superfluous.

What "ingenious schemes and thoughts" ? I merely stated my opinion that the spammer's futile
attempts to bypass filters are probably NOT increasing their revenues.

I could be wrong. I might have the only filters they haven't defeated. And all the other people
might be buying from the spammer just to reward him for working so hard to defeat their filters. But
I kind of doubt it.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:35:42 GMT, Jim Dumas

[email protected]!mindspring.com said:

Pete wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wont make a difference. It has happened in the past. When ever a mail header is downloaded
[assuming that the subject line is as I specified] then if I do not recognise the sender, it is
deleted.

Quoted message said:

Then you have no way to qualify new contacts, right?

Correct 100%. You see, the only new contacts that I would want are those I choose, not those who
choose to contact me. There again, if anyone on usenet wants to mail me and says so then I will make
a point of looking for their mail or mail them an addy that is not ignored.

Quoted message said:

If I sent you an eamil with your aspen addy, would it get tossed like spam?

No it would be there awaiting collection but I wouldn't know unless I accessed the server, which I
do every so often if I am bored.

Quoted message said:

One rule from my mailfilter Chinanet IP block, (Alan Ralsky spammer in Michigan, he's the US worst
one with lawsuits up the wazoo), is:

lol

Quoted message said:

DENY=^Received:.*\[218\.(66|78|79|80|81|82|83|242)\.

Quoted message said:

This kills two spams a day that get through Earthlink BrightMail filters. It kills on the known
originator's internet address. Quite effective single rule killer. In any case, I think you're
deluding yourself about your security,

Oh I don't think so....its a game really isn't it? Pitting your wits against all the [censored] heads that
try to command your use of the system. Its a way of learning as well. I am not invulnerable, nobody
is and I doubt if I am able to be 100% secure - its the nature of the beast but that does not deter
me from trying. There are many ways of hiding.

pete Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Wes Groleau said:

Pete said:

There are many viruses that are propogated by mail that carries in the subject line Re: Fwd: Hi:
and others. Also, some spammer mail tools generate these and similar en masse.

Quoted message said:

Sure. But IMHO the way to avoid viruses is discard all viruses. Not "discard everything using an
abbreviation that _some_ viruses also use."

Ok but to do that you have to identify that there is a virus. I prefer to attempt to identify
obvious potential rather than wait for a definate identification.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is unwise to assume that you are 100% safe. Again you

Quoted message said:

I do run a virus scanner regularly. I don't expect it to find any, because I never get any. If it
does find some, it will be because I got fooled by some attractive proggie on the web that wasn't
what it seemed to be. That has also never happened, but it could.

Same here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

missed my point. The only mail I download to my system is mail arriving directly to my one main
address via my ISP.

Quoted message said:

Same here.

ok

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Access to it is severely restricted as I have explained.

Quoted message said:

So is mine--but not by your rules. I have another account that only forwards good stuff. Its
filters are so reliable that I have no need to hide THAT address from anyone. Nor any need to
ostracize people for not knowing all the ins and outs of their e-mail clients.

I do not ostracise - just select.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Depends upon how you prefer to browse. Not everyone wants to operate the way you do.

Quoted message said:

:-) Obviously, not everyone wants to operate the way
you do either! But that's OK. I wholeheartedly agree your method is very safe. I disagree that it's
the only safe way, as you said.

Ok I accept that..........badly worded.

Quoted message said:

And I personally feel that my way is just as safe BUT far more convenient.

I am sure it is with the way that you are set up.

Pete

Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Pete said:

There are many viruses that are propogated by mail that carries in the subject line Re: Fwd: Hi:
and others. Also, some spammer mail tools generate these and similar en masse.

Sure. But IMHO the way to avoid viruses is discard all viruses. Not "discard everything using an
abbreviation that _some_ viruses also use."

Quoted message said:

It is unwise to assume that you are 100% safe. Again you

I do run a virus scanner regularly. I don't expect it to find any, because I never get any. If it
does find some, it will be because I got fooled by some attractive proggie on the web that wasn't
what it seemed to be. That has also never happened, but it could.

Quoted message said:

missed my point. The only mail I download to my system is mail arriving directly to my one main
address via my ISP.

Same here.

Quoted message said:

Access to it is severely restricted as I have explained.

So is mine--but not by your rules. I have another account that only forwards good stuff. Its filters
are so reliable that I have no need to hide THAT address from anyone. Nor any need to ostracize
people for not knowing all the ins and outs of their e-mail clients.

Quoted message said:

Depends upon how you prefer to browse. Not everyone wants to operate the way you do.

:-) Obviously, not everyone wants to operate the way
you do either! But that's OK. I wholeheartedly agree your method is very safe. I disagree that it's
the only safe way, as you said.

And I personally feel that my way is just as safe BUT far more convenient.

Jim Dumas said:

50% is my guess at how much BrightMail catches. I still have 1 email

Well, there you have it. Not a very good record.

Quoted message said:

bad spam is: ~4 spam emails per hour getting through BrightMail.

Hmmm. It's been so long since I did any counting.... Wild guess, twenty spams and a hundred viruses
per day to one address. None getting through the filters.

Quoted message said:

But your problem is how to qualify a new contact, not the old ones,

It's easy. If the prog calls it spam and the subject line makes me say "are you sure?" I take a
peek. If it's not spam, I order the program to adjust its criteria. If the prog calls it good, and
the subject line says it might actually be, I read it. If it's actually spam or virus, I order the
program to adjust its criteria. Neither has happened in a long time.

Actually, I do have a whitelist. But that's to save CPU time in the filter, not because I think
there's any risk of the spamdog biting my friends.

Wes Groleau said:

Randy Sigman said:

Quoted message said:

>Wes Groleau wrote

Quoted message said:

>>Anyone want to do a controlled study?

Quoted message said:

Hint: this was a joke. A controlled study would mean actually sending spams both ways and
measuring which one makes more money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The fact that we're all still spammed to death no matter all your ingenious schemes and thoughts
>might make that study very superfluous.

Quoted message said:

What "ingenious schemes and thoughts" ? I merely stated my opinion that the spammer's futile
attempts to bypass filters are probably NOT increasing their revenues.

Quoted message said:

I could be wrong. I might have the only filters they haven't defeated. And all the other people
might be buying from the spammer just to reward him for working so hard to defeat their filters.
But I kind of doubt it.

Wes,

I'm not sure where all of this came from, but your attributions are not quite right. I never
challenged your comment about a controlled study, as I recognized it to be a joke. 🙂

Randy

Randy Sigman <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.health.diabetes:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure where all of this came from, but your attributions are not quite right. I never
challenged your comment about a controlled study, as I recognized it to be a joke. 🙂

Hi Randy,

Wes seems to be lost in the quoting woods 🙂 and is responding to a post actually made by me.

The point was about him not understanding why spammers kept trying to circumvent filters. His
believe is that spammers are wasting their times trying to circumvent filters because people setting
up those filters obviously want that spam out, not in - to buy.

Of course spammers don't react to his private filters. They react to all new filters; their target
is mass, not individuals. To keep a critical mass, you have to circumvent as many filters as you
want, and it proves to be profitable, because they still make money.

Wes finds it hard to understand that the reality conflicts with his logic. If you're reading this:
No offense Wes 🙂

--
CeeBee

"I am not a crook"

CeeBee said:

Randy Sigman <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.health.diabetes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure where all of this came from, but your attributions are not quite right. I never
challenged your comment about a controlled study, as I recognized it to be a joke. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Hi Randy, Wes seems to be lost in the quoting woods 🙂 and is responding to a post actually
made by me.

Quoted message said:

The point was about him not understanding why spammers kept trying to circumvent filters. His
believe is that spammers are wasting their times trying to circumvent filters because people
setting up those filters obviously want that spam out, not in - to buy.

Quoted message said:

Of course spammers don't react to his private filters. They react to all new filters; their target
is mass, not individuals. To keep a critical mass, you have to circumvent as many filters as you
want, and it proves to be profitable, because they still make money.

Err..........I think probably not. What you have is a load of dead heads that have been sold a corck
of [censored] and try to peddle it on to others as a means of earning 'hit revenue'. The motive is greed
and the promise of a fast buck for nothing. BTW most of the spam comes from the US.

Quoted message said:

Wes finds it hard to understand that the reality conflicts with his logic. If you're reading this:
No offense Wes 🙂

Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Jim Dumas said:

One rule from my mailfilter Chinanet IP block, (Alan Ralsky spammer in Michigan, he's the US worst
one with lawsuits up the wazoo), is:

DENY=^Received:.*\[218\.(66|78|79|80|81|82|83|242)\.

I've modified this rule to:

DENY=^Received:.*[([ ]218\.(66|78|79|80|81|82|83|242)\.

It's killed 3 Ralsky Chinanet spams in the last 13 hours. Also note that the .66. and .242. subnets
are not totally Chinanet ISP. I decided to ignore this and correct it later if problems occur. These
two were added from SpamHaus postings of the "Top Ten" spammers for January 2004.

I also think spammers have accelerated their efforts, over the last 4 months, to beat the ticking
antispam legislative clock. This heightened spam burden spills over as BrightMail filter misses. So
these misses are challenged on 6 of 8 email addresses. Oh well.

In any case, exploiting/fine-tuning a good rule for more hits,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

Jim Dumas said:

Quoted message said:

One rule from my mailfilter Chinanet IP block, (Alan Ralsky spammer in Michigan, he's the US
worst one with lawsuits up the wazoo), is:

This is the 4th hit in 16 hours (so a new record today):

mailfilter: Deleted "regan rivera" <[email hidden]>: Good News - scientific journal news:
medical update, Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:45:57 +0200. [Applied filter: '^Received:.*[([
]218\.(66|78|79|80|81|82|83|242)\.']

This is what is see in deletion logs. The Ralsky spam machine is in high gear lately. This suggests
he's trying to make a last ditch effort before laws change and his spam is no longer considered
"Free Speech," but harassment instead.

I think this higher spam content is what Guy is experiencing.
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

Pete <[email hidden]> wrote on Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:53:07 +0000:

Quoted message said:

The only way to be spam free is to adopt the recommended techniques. As soon as you do - then you
will see the difference almost immediately. And the best thing of all, there is no way for the
spammers to get arround it.

Several of your rules are needless, and can be replaced by a single better rule. These rules are:

Quoted message said:

4] Never set your mail program to auto download the mail body. Set to recieve header only.

Quoted message said:

6] Never download or accept an attachment unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

Quoted message said:

7] Never download a mail unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

Quoted message said:

9] Never ever use the Windoze Address Book facility or any other address book that is 'built
into' your mail client. Use a standalone software and copy/paste addresses. There are a lot of
free ones available. Or create your own.

Quoted message said:

16] Use an AV product - and there are free ones about - which will scan boot up and all mail
inbound and outbound.

[Actually, an anti-virus program is a good idea anyway, but is needless for mail.]

And the single, better rule is ] Never use an email client which is capable of executing a program
arriving by email. An HTML formatted mail (probably) counts as a program for this purpose, unless
the client merely strips out the HTML garbage for display purposes.

Quoted message said:

These are some of the items you should be looking at to ensure your security and privacy. There
are more but I consider this the minimum.

Quoted message said:

HTH

Quoted message said:

[Now ducking]

Quack!

Quoted message said:

Pete

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [email hidden]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated
letter (like "aa"😉, remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"😉.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:02:32 +0000, Alan

Mackenzie said:

Pete <[email hidden]> wrote on Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:53:07 +0000:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only way to be spam free is to adopt the recommended techniques. As soon as you do - then you
will see the difference almost immediately. And the best thing of all, there is no way for the
spammers to get arround it.

Quoted message said:

Several of your rules are needless, and can be replaced by a single better rule. These rules are:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4] Never set your mail program to auto download the mail body. Set to recieve header only.
6] Never download or accept an attachment unless you can positively identify the sender by name.
7] Never download a mail unless you can positively identify the sender by name.
9] Never ever use the Windoze Address Book facility or any other address book that is 'built
into' your mail client. Use a standalone software and copy/paste addresses. There are a lot
of free ones available. Or create your own.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

16] Use an AV product - and there are free ones about - which will scan boot up and all mail
inbound and outbound.

Quoted message said:

[Actually, an anti-virus program is a good idea anyway, but is needless for mail.]

Odd......the only occasions I have had a virus - they arrived by e-mail and I have in the past been
guilty of sending a virused mail. So why you say it is needless I find a little curious.

Quoted message said:

And the single, better rule is ] Never use an email client which is capable of executing a program
arriving by email. An HTML formatted mail (probably) counts as a program for this purpose, unless
the client merely strips out the HTML garbage for display purposes.

Well I'd agree with that except there are viri about which do not need to be executed. They function
on arrival.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These are some of the items you should be looking at to ensure your security and privacy. There
are more but I consider this the minimum. HTH

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Now ducking]

Quoted message said:

Quack!

Pete

Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Pete said:

Well I'd agree with that except there are viri about which do not need to be executed. They
function on arrival.

Hi Pete,

Are you able to cite an example of such a virus?

Randy

Alan Mackenzie said:

Quoted message said:

These are some of the items you should be looking at to ensure your security and privacy. There
are more but I consider this the minimum.

Not a bad idea. We just lost the use of 29 computers here in the office. The people working the
lines want to open everything but their job descriptions. Anyone want 29...at last count...used hard
drives complete with worms.

Pete said:

Ok but to do that you have to identify that there is a virus. I prefer to attempt to identify
obvious potential rather than wait for a definate identification.

A virus is an attachment. If an e-mail has an executable attachment, I never see it. If it does not,
tests for "spam-like features" are made. None of those tests have anything to do with the presence
of "Re" or "Fwd"

CeeBee said:

Wes finds it hard to understand that the reality conflicts with his logic. If you're reading this:
No offense Wes 🙂

It's neither logic nor reality, it's speculation on both sides. Unless you are actually a spammer
and have collected data proving that the _second_ of the following makes more money than the first:

first:

second:

Subject: commandant coadjutor

He110 d0 U ne.ed V1agra? 5he wi11 L-U-V U 4 it !

RE M OVE : salesnow.sdoiws.comemailremove.aspOpen ↗ construe chicago pancreas time
fredericksburg beige border biennium tonight bibb aback = orthodox dice would dadaist automobile
= sibley sicken graywacke colloquial bus = retrieve bedfast economic julep codeword =

It is my _opinion_ that the latter will sell LESS. Still enough to keep the guy spamming, though.
Unproved opinion, based on the hunches I have already stated.

(By the way, most of that stupidity was actually cut and pasted from real spams still in the
dumpster. The bypass attempts don't even work!)