Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:45:45 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009424745.aa16cc@mired.org> To: jack <jack@germanium.xtalwind.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spam Message-ID: <15396.489.261524.154119@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20011221220912.S81018-100000@germanium.xtalwind.net> References: <200112211610.fBLGATc85876@jhs.muc.de> <20011221220912.S81018-100000@germanium.xtalwind.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jack <jack@germanium.xtalwind.net> types: > Moved from current. > Today Julian Stacey wrote: > > PS Maybe if we were to regularly automatically scramble all email addresses > > in our web searchable mail archives ? just inserting ._ErAsE_ThIs_. in every > > email address would protect us from easy harvesting by simple spammer robots. Well, all my email addresses in the archives (starting last week) expire after five days. Mail to the address that predates that arrangement will get the same treatment as expired addresses - a reply asking that the sender confirm that it isn't spam. Since most spam doesn't have a valid return address, I never see it. > Spammers don't care if the addresses are valid. The `dictionary > attacks' are the killers, from an ISP's POV. Day after day it is > a constant flood of: > al1@dom.ain > al2@dom.ain > ... > al10@dom.ain > alvin1@dom.ain > alvin2@dom.ain > ... > zelda1@dom.ain > > mail# grep "User unknown" /var/log/maillog | wc -l > 138872 > > That's in 22 hours and 14 minutes. We have just over 3,300 > active email accounts. The question in this case is whether that's spam or a DoS attack disguised as spam? <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15396.489.261524.154119>