September 21st, 2004

Previous Entry Next Entry
08:14 pm - the good, the bad, and the "fuck you and the horse you rode in on, spammer"

The bad: some fucking pharmaceutical-pimping retard with nameservers in Arizona, webservers in China and Korea, domain registries in Costa Rica, a telephone operation in Great Britain, and a pool of hundreds or thousands of compromised computers to relay his mail through - mostly ADSL users - has decided to use random text strings as the reply-to in his spams... so I'm getting about 200 bounce messages per hour from spamfilters catching his shit and/or bad addresses in his list.  And there isn't jack shit I can do to keep that from happening.

The (relatively) good: at least it's not 1,500 bounces per hour like last time.  I'm not sure if that's because this one's using a cleaner list, or it's just harder to pimp as much bulk through a rotating pool of hacked home computers than it was through a real server leased through someplace shady a year or two back.

And as for the third part... just try to order some sketchy meds from or or today.  No, really... try.

::smiles thinly::

Current Mood: fucking irritated
Current Music: NWA - Chin Check

(3 comments | Leave a comment)


[User Picture] From: hotcrab
Date: September 21st, 2004 - 05:47 pm
dude. you just killed my supply of xanax and viagra.

how am i gonna be happy AND hard this weekend?

[User Picture] From: fishpig
Date: September 22nd, 2004 - 09:29 am
I get an occasional bounced message, puportedly from me originally, but always some sucker who's been compromised and has my address in their book.
I probably don't know enough to judge, but wouldn't it be better for spam blockers to just bin the spam rather than bouncing them? Seems like a thorough waste of time and bandwidth to me.
Oh, and if you want to save on your international calls, I'll happily fax/phone-bomb him from work here in the UK. Amazing how many wrong numbers one can dial. Repeatedly.

[User Picture] From: jimbojones
Date: September 22nd, 2004 - 09:35 am
Bouncing spam vs shitcanning it is a mildly controversial issue; whether it's best to bounce it or to quietly chuck it in the bin depends largely on whether or not your particular filtering system generates a lot of false positives.

If you tend to tag innocent and legitimate email as "spam" frequently then you should bounce it so that the innocents can then find some other way to get through / at least know they DIDN'T get through.

As for myself, I try to avoid generating false positives and do, in fact, quietly shitcan spams (and viruses) that come in.

Incidentally, your own bounce messages are almost certain to be the result of people who have your email address / have been to a web page with your email address on it and have gotten a virus.

> Go to Top