Warning! to Paul Saunders!



Reid wrote:

> Try insisting he removed your email address from his machine until he has!

I really should run a virus checker and an ad detector etc. on his machine just to see what's
already on there. Maybe if (when?) it throws up a load of junk that might persuade him that he needs
some protection.

Last time I saw him he was complaining about an unfamiliar program popping up and running every time
he booted up. Doesn't know where it came from or what it does. Doesn't seem to do any harm, he says.
He just closes it each time after boot up.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Following up to Bernard Hill

>When I get 3-400 of these I know I'm due for several thousand more as the spammer goes through the
>other letters of the alphabet.
>
>There are CDs that spammers can use containing 100 million email addresses: most of them (I
>theorise) are made up of domain and names interchanged systematically.

I haven't suffered that ...yet. Most spam has been for valid addresses that I have now dustbinned
because they had become public. I get a few to my current valid address because it was public for a
short time and one or two that look like guesses. Its just this week I have got lots of
madeupname@myvalidaddress
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London
etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-
walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
"Bernard wrote in message ((snip))> >
>
> There are CDs that spammers can use containing 100 million email addresses: most of them (I
> theorise) are made up of domain and names interchanged systematically.
>

What I've never understood is that I don't know anyone that has ever bought from a spammer. So why
do they persist? It can't make economic sense surely.

--
Regards Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst
the stars 371 data units completed.
 
Chris Gilbert wrote:

>>> I have a friend who's had a computer for years and he still doesn't use a firewall or a virus
>>> checker. Whenever I mention it to him he dismisses them, saying he has no need for them.
>>
>> Lol, A first rate Pr*t and a lot of office workers! in business.
>
> Maybe he uses a Mac.

No.

> Maybe he doesn't use MS Outlook or Outlook Express.

Yes.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:12:25 -0000, "Bob Hobden"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bernard wrote in message ((snip))> >
>>
>> There are CDs that spammers can use containing 100 million email addresses: most of them (I
>> theorise) are made up of domain and names interchanged systematically.
>>
>
>What I've never understood is that I don't know anyone that has ever bought from a spammer. So why
>do they persist? It can't make economic sense surely.

We tried to tell him that when he first raised that mad calendar idea.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com
 
Phil Cook wrote:

> That's why I've got the "hide file extension for known types" under Folder Options>View unchecked.
> Am I correct in thinking that the default behavior for Windows is to hide extensions? I've just
> checked and it is. Sheesh! talk about broken software.

Not broken, deliberately dumbed down. I hate most default options and have always changed them
immediately after installing Windows. Problem is, newbies don't and take the defaults for granted.

I needed to change an extension on my nephew's computer a while back and was annoyed to see that I
couldn't because they were hidden. After I changed the setting to show them my nephew complained and
asked me to put it back the way it was because he preferred it that way.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:49:35 +0000, Bernard Hill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Bob Hobden
><[email protected]> writes
>>
>>What I've never understood is that I don't know anyone that has ever bought from a spammer. So why
>>do they persist? It can't make economic sense surely.
>
>When you're sending tens of millions then a 0.01% response is worthwhile.

While this is true, I am constantly depressed by the endless new tricks the b******s think up to get
past anti-spam measures. For example, I am getting heaps of stuff with random "harmless" words in -
this seems to be trying to swamp Bayesian filters (but not mine, because I'm careful what I use to
"teach" the filtering program). But for heavens sake, do they think that if they use cleverer and
cleverer tricks to bludgeon their way past obstacles that people are clearly erecting in their path,
that somehow we will be so impressed with anything that sneaks through that we will roll over on the

stock-tips, as opposed to instantly trashing it as we did previously ?

What one should always remember is that the client spammer is a dumbass, but he/she is buying
services from some very smart cookies indeed.

--
I wish I was more like I think I am.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
Bernard Hill wrote:

> Exactly. The worst decision M$ made about Windows imo. Even in virus- free situations it confuses
> people really badly: it's one of the most important things to learn when coming to Windows:
> programs are associated with extensions - but if you never see extensions then you don't easily
> grasp this!

I seriously doubt that helping users to grasp how a computer works is top of Microsoft's priority
list. In fact, they'd probably prefer it if people don't understand how it works. It seems the big
plan is to sell a computer to every individual on the planet and have them all networked together
through the internet, and the less people understand the better able they are to manipulate them.

I remember the days when the term "personal computer" meant exactly that. *My* computer, with which
I did what *I* wanted to do. I decided what to install and where to put everything. I knew exactly
what was on my computer and where it was, and what most of it did. I liked to know what every single
file type was for and why it was there.

Now look at the mess that is a typical hard drive. Half the time I think my computer is in control
of me rather than the other way around. It's a constant battle to try to stay in control.

Computer: Do you want to install this program?

User: Yes.

Computer: (Installs program plus other junk without telling the user.)

User: Uninstall program.

Computer: Do you want to remove this program and all it's components from your hard drive.

User: Yes.

Computer: (Uninstalls main program files, leaves various bits of junk in the Windows directory and
numerous settings in the registry. Don't worry, the user won't know, and we may use this information
in the future.)

Or how about this one when uninstalling a program;

Computer: Do you want to remove this shared component? It doesn't *appear* to be used by any
other programs.

User: How the hell would I know? You never told me what you installed. You never told me which
programs used which components. If you don't know whether a particular component is used by another
program how am I supposed to? You're the damn computer, you figure it out!

So it deletes the file that doesn't appear to be used by anything else and the next thing you know,
some of your other software ceases to work!

While I'm on this rant, I once tested some registry cleaning software (Norton I think) immediately
after a clean reinstall of Windows. Even with nothing else on the computer other than the cleaning
software, it found numerous redundant registry entries that could be "safely deleted". So I
proceeded to do that, after which, Windows promptly screwed up. Amongst other things, the mouse
ceased to work!

I've never trusted advice that it was safe to delete anything after that.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Reid wrote on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:40:38 +0000....
> Its just this week I have got lots of madeupname@myvalidaddress

This seems to be a feature of the latest crop of viruses (Novarg/MyDoom, I assume). I've always had
a problem with spam addressed to oneparticularmadeupname@oneparticularvalidaddress but now I'm
getting lots of virus-generated traffic to randommadeupnames@differentvalidaddresses.

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:35:46 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I really should run a virus checker and an ad detector etc. on his machine just to see what's
>already on there. Maybe if (when?) it throws up a load of junk that might persuade him that he
>needs some protection.
>
<snip>

For anyone using Nortons, I would advise them to use McAffee <sp>, Nortons is causing all sorts of
problems at the moment and lets a lot through <stand by for anti virus advocacy wars>.

--

Please take the **** out of deemon when sending an e-mail.
 
Bob Hobden wrote

> What I've never understood is that I don't know anyone that has ever bought from a spammer. So why
> do they persist? It can't make economic sense surely.

Because spam costs the sender nothing to create it survives with very low returns. A hit rate of 1
in 10,000 is considered to be an incredibly successful campaign. There are presently proposals
circulating that would mean a small but real cost for email sending, say 1p per email, which for the
private user would be negligible but would put spammers, who rely on being able to send millions of
emails for free, out of business overnight and for good. There is a strong movement against this,
however, mainly because MS are involved and many worry (quite justifiably IMO) that it's just the
tip of the iceberg and leaves the door open to huge revenue potential through more significant
charging at a later date.

I prefer whitelist/greylist systems myself, which are just as effective.

Chris
 
In article <[email protected]>, Reid <[email protected]> writes
>Its just this week I have got lots of madeupname@myvalidaddress

That's a symptom of the Mydoom/Novarg virus. It takes a domain name, and prefixes it with a variety
of christian names, in the hope of hitting additional valid addresses.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
 
Harbinger <[email protected]> wrote
>
>For anyone using Nortons, I would advise them to use McAffee <sp>, Nortons is causing all sorts of
>problems at the moment and lets a lot through <stand by for anti virus advocacy wars>.
>
Any virus checker is only as good as the latest definitions, and the only time I got caught was when
I was one day out of date. :-(
--
Gordon
 
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:42:46 +0000, Bernard Hill
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I get bouncebacks like that all the time telling me I'm spamming viruses. It's a consequence of
>your email being public, it's put on as the originator address.

Actually the problem lies in Outhouse and Outhouse Express. First, they are usually set to add all
incoming addresses to their address book. Second, the worms not only suck in the addresses from the
address book to use as targets, but they pick one at random to use as the sender.

I am sure there must be a worm which spreads via some other mail client, but mopst of them seem to
exploit the same fundamental weakness in Outhouse.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Harbinger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:35:46 -0000, "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >I really should run a virus checker and an ad detector etc. on his machine just to see what's
> >already on there. Maybe if (when?) it throws up a load of junk that might persuade him that he
> >needs some protection.
> >
> <snip>
>
> For anyone using Nortons, I would advise them to use McAffee <sp>, Nortons is causing all sorts of
> problems at the moment and lets a lot through <stand by for anti virus advocacy wars>.
>
Go on, tell us what the supposed problems are. I use Norton AV/IS 2003 on this XP machine. Of more
interest to me would be how to stop all the junk text messages to my mobile... (3 in the last week,
none before that).

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back