Re: Unstoppable picture spam.

Asterix wrote:
> Mike Easter
>> Asterix wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't say my software prohibits me - it's rather Spamcop's web
>>> form. Eudora lets me forward the spam to a sumbission address
>>> without inspection, but then I completely lose control of where the
>>> reports go. Examining the X-lines is of limited or no interest for
>>> that purpose.
>>
>> I could use Eudora with SpamPal.

> The procedure you describe just sounds way too tedious,

No, we have different 'default' modes.  My default mode is to not open
my spam unless I have to.  Your default mode is to open your spam, I
think..

My default mode isn't tedious at all, it is quick.  I go to my Junk
folder, 'globally view' [overview their subject/froms in a glance seeing
there isn't anything from some forgotten friend in there] on the
spamgroup, gather them en masse and quick report them with a series of
keystrokes which take about 2 seconds and also mark the spams as 'read'.

I quick report because I'm not notifying spamvertiser providers for the
reasons I explained.

If I should need to check the interior of a spam, I am not in default
mode, and the first thing I look at is the headers - first what
SpamPal's Xlines say, and then if I need any additional information I
use my own techniques.

> More work is not worth the effort - to me.

It isn't more work for me.
>
>> Most of what I try to 'advise' or teach about mail/spam handling is
>> what I recommend to the 'masses' which includes the majority of
>> spamcop reporters.  Some advanced spamfighters do all kinds of
>> things I don't recommend to the mass of SC reporters, including
>> going to the website and exploring it.
>
> Aah - the "uneducated masses".

My term did *not* say uneducated.  The masses are a lot of different
things, some are pledged to never aid a spammer, some are not.  Some are
insecurely configured, some are not.  Some just need some advice about
how to handle their mail, not be a reporter.

> Heard that one before. The masses
> are smarter than you think. But of course there are some morons, too.

Of course.  Don't ascribe words to me that I didn't say and more
importantly didn't mean.

> Anyway parts of your advice are blunt and miss the target.
> - what do you mean by reading spam subjects receptively ?

The recipient is reading the subject to see if she is interested in
reading the spam for content.

>     (English is *not* my mother language)

OK.  It is practically the only one I have even though I've spent some
years in both Spanish and German language classes and lots of time in
Mexico and Southern California locales in which the first language is
Spanish not English.

> - I don't read spam bodies for content, but for links and for
> appearances of my address in the body. OK - that is contents ? :-)

That is 'inspection'.  You can inspect the interior of a spam without
even reading it.  You can even use a tool to search it for the
occurrence of your username or a derivation thereof.

> - Who would get the idea of reading Spammy's mind ?

Lotsa people make themselves crazy trying to figure out why a spammer
did something.

> Unlike them I don't use Windows, so I can open next to anything with
> next to zero risk.

Yes.  Not using Win and OE and IE's rendering engine is one element of
security -- or rather one element of not being insecure in that
particular way.

>> not currently blocklisted anywhere, including spews or spamhaus, so
>> the present IP doesn't have a history of unresponsiveness.
>
> So they got a new IP ? - didn't think of that.

I don't know.  It is hard to figure out what an old IP used to be unless
it is somewhere in sightings and resolved differently.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin