Networking Forums

Networking Forums > Computer Networking > Linux Networking > Spammers LUV SpamAssassin

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Spammers LUV SpamAssassin

 
 
Alan Connor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      08-31-2003, 10:31 PM

Spammers LUV SpamAssassin


I no longer have any doubts about this.


I have written a simple program that eliminates spam completely

and find myself under attack by people who *claim* to be ordinary SpamAssassin

users.


Now WHO is it that would have reason to hate a program that makes sending the
user spam a waste of time?


SPAMMERS, that's who.


Why do they love SpamAssassin?


Think about it:


You have an SA user with, among other things, what amounts to a list of
prohibited strings in the subject header and body.


Does he or she send this list to anyone likely to be sending them mail?

No. But they discuss it in public and semi-public forums with other SA users,

don't they.


So where do the spammers hang out? Care to guess?


And they end up being the only people in the world outside of the legitimate
SA experts themselves that have this magic list of prohibited strings and
all the other tests that will cause mail to be tagged as spam.


Want a list of spammers? Hit the archives and begin with searching for the
string "MSP" and then "elrav1" which is what msp became after a major rework.

Focus on comp.mail.misc

Copy the headers from any posts that contain obviously unfair and unreasonable
attacks on yours truly.


You will then have a list of some of the worst scum on the Internet.


And guess who is teaching them how to get spam into your mailbox?


The same people who are allegedly keeping it OUT of your mailbox.


And they are fairly often the SAME people.


If you want spam, then use SA and its relatives. If you don't, use elrav1
and its relatives.


It's this simple: If you are going to accept anonymous mail you are going
to be at the mercy of spammers and trolls.


Alan C



--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whoever
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 02:42 AM
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Alan Connor wrote:

>
> Spammers LUV SpamAssassin
>
>
> I no longer have any doubts about this.
>
>
> I have written a simple program that eliminates spam completely


Actually, contrary to popular belief, it is easy to stop spam. Just stop
using email!

>
>
> You have an SA user with, among other things, what amounts to a list of
> prohibited strings in the subject header and body.
>
>
> Does he or she send this list to anyone likely to be sending them mail?


Errrr... SpamAssassin is open source and written mostly in Perl. Anyone
can look at the tests SpamAssassin makes.

>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Laidlaw
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 03:27 AM
Alan Connor wrote:

>
> Spammers LUV SpamAssassin
>
>
> I no longer have any doubts about this.
>
>
> I have written a simple program that eliminates spam completely
>
> and find myself under attack by people who *claim* to be ordinary
> SpamAssassin
>
> users.
>
>
> Now WHO is it that would have reason to hate a program that makes sending
> the user spam a waste of time?
>
>
> SPAMMERS, that's who.
>
>
> Why do they love SpamAssassin?
>
>
> Think about it:
>
>
> You have an SA user with, among other things, what amounts to a list of
> prohibited strings in the subject header and body.
>
>
> Does he or she send this list to anyone likely to be sending them mail?
>
> No. But they discuss it in public and semi-public forums with other SA
> users,
>
> don't they.
>
>
> So where do the spammers hang out? Care to guess?
>
>
> And they end up being the only people in the world outside of the
> legitimate
> SA experts themselves that have this magic list of prohibited strings and
> all the other tests that will cause mail to be tagged as spam.
>
>
> Want a list of spammers? Hit the archives and begin with searching for the
> string "MSP" and then "elrav1" which is what msp became after a major
> rework.
>
> Focus on comp.mail.misc
>
> Copy the headers from any posts that contain obviously unfair and
> unreasonable attacks on yours truly.
>
>
> You will then have a list of some of the worst scum on the Internet.
>
>
> And guess who is teaching them how to get spam into your mailbox?
>
>
> The same people who are allegedly keeping it OUT of your mailbox.
>
>
> And they are fairly often the SAME people.
>
>
> If you want spam, then use SA and its relatives. If you don't, use elrav1
> and its relatives.
>
>
> It's this simple: If you are going to accept anonymous mail you are going
> to be at the mercy of spammers and trolls.
>
>
> Alan C
>
>
>

If you are serious, let's see it. If it is that thing where you decide not
to receive any mails from people that won't do it twice, be prepared to miss
out on a lot. Business doesn't have the time to waste that you obviously
have. They can't even answer their phones within a reasonanble time frame.

Doug.
--
Registered Linux User No. 277548.
They say lightning never strikes twice in the same place. My typing is
about as accurate. Apologies for any typos that slip in. - Doug.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Murphy
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 06:51 AM
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:31:12 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:

> I have written a simple program that eliminates spam completely


You didn't provide URLs. I can't imagine why; in your shoes, I
would stick 'em in my .sig, and otherwise trumpet them with alarming
regularity. Anyway, here they are:

http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconno...v1/elrav1.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/elrav1/files.html

Ack! Why isn't it downloadable in .tar.gz format? Your poor
presentation has just lost 90% of your potential audience!

Anyway, it appears to be a set of front-end scripts to procmail
that implements the following:

1) Whitelisted senders are allowed
2) Non-whitelisted senders are sent "Please reply to this with <key>"
3) Messages with <key> become whitelisted

This is a valid approach (mostly, see next paragraph) - but look at
how you present it! You could calmly explain the different approaches
used by SA and elrav1, and why you believe elrav1's approach is better;
but instead, you keep writing apoplectic rants. Your poor presentation
has just lost another 90% of your potential audience!

This is a valid approach (mostly, see below) but IMO your /terrible/
attitude causes lots of people to refuse to listen to you. Sorry, dude,
but stamping your foot and insisting the world come to your doorstep is
just /not going to work/. You're going to have to actually learn a
modicum of diplomacy. This is possible (provably; I did it). No, it's
not always pleasant (I speak from experience there as well), but the
alternative

Some Windoze viruses look at the victim's address book when forging a
From: line. Such From: lines have a reasonable chance of being on
your whitelist. (If you are their friend, then they might be yours as
well.) Does elrav1 have any ability to detect forged From: lines? (I
don't know; I'm asking.)

> You have an SA user with, among other things, what amounts to a list of
> prohibited strings in the subject header and body.
>
>
> Does he or she send this list to anyone likely to be sending them mail?


If any of my friends triggered enough of SA's heuristics that their
messages registered as spam, (a) I'd be very surprised and (b) I'd
re-evaluate whether they are still my friend.

> No. But they discuss it in public and semi-public forums with other SA users,
> don't they.


I assume you are referring to the publically disclosed list of heuristics
used by SA:

http://www.spamassassin.org/tests.html

Sure, a smart spammer could read that list and figure sneaky ways around
at least some of the rules. But do they /actually do so/? A quick
eyeballing of the rules, and of some of the spam I've received lately,
seems to indicate that they do not!

Have you *actually tested* SA on a plausible volume of e-mail? How
about SA with Bayesian filtering activated? You may still be able
to say "SA is not as good as elrav1" and be correct, but currently
you are saying "SA is terrible" and I suspect that's just not true.

> Want a list of spammers? Hit the archives and begin with searching for the
> string "MSP" and then "elrav1" which is what msp became after a major rework.
>
> Focus on comp.mail.misc
>
> Copy the headers from any posts that contain obviously unfair and unreasonable
> attacks on yours truly.


Unfair and unreasonable by whose judgment? Yours? You're biased. First,
you have a direct interest in elrav1 (you're the author). Second, at
least based on the posts of yours that I've seen in comp.os.linux.misc,
you are in a near-constant state of apoplexy. "Follow my orders, you
idiot, or I'll subject you to the worst fate imaginable - I'll *killfile*
you!" Terrible attitude, like I said earlier, and it's poisoning any
chance of elrav1 being given serious consideration.

For the record, I don't use any spam filter whatsoever. I don't
particularly need one. My typical daily mail volume consists of
several dozen messages from various mailing lists (which are sorted
into folders) and perhaps one or two dozen spams (which are left in
my inbox, and which take less than a minute to delete by hand).

I also haven't written any software comparable to either SA or
elrav1; it would take me at least a week to train up to the level
that I could do so. If I did write such software, though, then
rest assured that I would pay the *utmost* attention to good
presentation - because my goal would be to write a program worthy
of widespread use, and actually get it into widespread use.

Maybe your goal is for elrav1 to be used only by those select few
users willing to ignore your apoplexy, overcome your lack of succinct
this-is-the-basic-concept explanation, and jump through your
wheel-reinventing hoops to unpack it. If that is indeed your goal,
then your current approach is guaranteed to achieve it.

Oh, and if you feel like killfiling me, then don't waste your time
threatening me that you may do so. (Unless you take pleasure in
writing such threats. I suspect that this is the case.) Just do
it and get it over with. I'd consider it an honor.

 
Reply With Quote
 
George Hewitt
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 08:02 AM
I don't use SA. I use a program called SmiteSpam which is built into my
mailserver directly. It works fantastically and the integration to the
mailserver and its webmail component is good news for my clients.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Connor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 10:36 AM
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:02:04 +0100, George Hewitt <george@--++NOSCHPAM++--georgehewitt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I don't use SA. I use a program called SmiteSpam which is built into my
> mailserver directly. It works fantastically and the integration to the
> mailserver and its webmail component is good news for my clients.
>
>
>



Nice little commercial utterly lacking in substance.


Alan C


--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Connor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 10:36 AM


No, Sam Whoever, I am not reading your post.


To repeat for the thousandth time: grow up and get a life


Alan C




--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Connor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 10:36 AM
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 13:27:09 +1000, Doug Laidlaw <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>>
>> Spammers LUV SpamAssassin
>>
>>
>> I no longer have any doubts about this.
>>
>>
>> I have written a simple program that eliminates spam completely
>>
>> and find myself under attack by people who *claim* to be ordinary
>> SpamAssassin
>>
>> users.
>>
>>
>> Now WHO is it that would have reason to hate a program that makes sending
>> the user spam a waste of time?
>>
>>
>> SPAMMERS, that's who.
>>
>>
>> Why do they love SpamAssassin?
>>
>>
>> Think about it:
>>
>>
>> You have an SA user with, among other things, what amounts to a list of
>> prohibited strings in the subject header and body.
>>
>>
>> Does he or she send this list to anyone likely to be sending them mail?
>>
>> No. But they discuss it in public and semi-public forums with other SA
>> users,
>>
>> don't they.
>>
>>
>> So where do the spammers hang out? Care to guess?
>>
>>
>> And they end up being the only people in the world outside of the
>> legitimate
>> SA experts themselves that have this magic list of prohibited strings and
>> all the other tests that will cause mail to be tagged as spam.
>>
>>
>> Want a list of spammers? Hit the archives and begin with searching for the
>> string "MSP" and then "elrav1" which is what msp became after a major
>> rework.
>>
>> Focus on comp.mail.misc
>>
>> Copy the headers from any posts that contain obviously unfair and
>> unreasonable attacks on yours truly.
>>
>>
>> You will then have a list of some of the worst scum on the Internet.
>>
>>
>> And guess who is teaching them how to get spam into your mailbox?
>>
>>
>> The same people who are allegedly keeping it OUT of your mailbox.
>>
>>
>> And they are fairly often the SAME people.
>>
>>
>> If you want spam, then use SA and its relatives. If you don't, use elrav1
>> and its relatives.
>>
>>
>> It's this simple: If you are going to accept anonymous mail you are going
>> to be at the mercy of spammers and trolls.
>>
>>
>> Alan C
>>
>>
>>

> If you are serious, let's see it. If it is that thing where you decide not
> to receive any mails from people that won't do it twice, be prepared to miss
> out on a lot.



What the HELL are you talking about?






Business doesn't have the time to waste that you obviously
> have. They can't even answer their phones within a reasonanble time frame.
>
> Doug.



I recommend changing your medication.



Alan C


--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony@aplawrence.com
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 11:26 AM
In comp.os.linux.misc Ed Murphy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:31:12 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:


>> I have written a simple program that eliminates spam completely


...stuff trimmed..

>Anyway, it appears to be a set of front-end scripts to procmail
>that implements the following:


> 1) Whitelisted senders are allowed
> 2) Non-whitelisted senders are sent "Please reply to this with <key>"
> 3) Messages with <key> become whitelisted


>This is a valid approach (mostly, see next paragraph) - but look at
>how you present it! You could calmly explain the different approaches
>used by SA and elrav1, and why you believe elrav1's approach is better;
>but instead, you keep writing apoplectic rants. Your poor presentation
>has just lost another 90% of your potential audience!


...stuff trimmed..

>If any of my friends triggered enough of SA's heuristics that their
>messages registered as spam, (a) I'd be very surprised and (b) I'd
>re-evaluate whether they are still my friend.


Exactly..

>Have you *actually tested* SA on a plausible volume of e-mail? How
>about SA with Bayesian filtering activated? You may still be able
>to say "SA is not as good as elrav1" and be correct, but currently
>you are saying "SA is terrible" and I suspect that's just not true.


I agree. I do some extra procmail filtering pre-SA seeing it,
and some Bayesian afterward, but that's just to save me a little
extra bit of time. SA works fine without it.

I don't like the elrav1 type approach because it is annoying to
have to go through some extra step for someone to send me mail, and
while I'll annoy my friends, annoying my customers isn't a good
idea. But it might be a FINE idea for someone else, though I
would still recommend that they use SA too. Nothing in elrav1
PREVENTS using SA, and if he were smart enough to understand that
he'd be better off.

...stuff deleted ..

>Unfair and unreasonable by whose judgment? Yours? You're biased. First,
>you have a direct interest in elrav1 (you're the author). Second, at
>least based on the posts of yours that I've seen in comp.os.linux.misc,
>you are in a near-constant state of apoplexy. "Follow my orders, you
>idiot, or I'll subject you to the worst fate imaginable - I'll *killfile*
>you!" Terrible attitude, like I said earlier, and it's poisoning any
>chance of elrav1 being given serious consideration.


Or being reviewed. If he had calmly explained his product as
you suggested, I might have written a little blurb about it at
my site, and so might other folks. I probably would have mentioned
that SA should still be in there, but so what?

>Maybe your goal is for elrav1 to be used only by those select few
>users willing to ignore your apoplexy, overcome your lack of succinct
>this-is-the-basic-concept explanation, and jump through your
>wheel-reinventing hoops to unpack it. If that is indeed your goal,
>then your current approach is guaranteed to achieve it.


:-)

--
(E-Mail Removed) Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philipp Pagel
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-01-2003, 11:31 AM
In comp.os.linux.misc Alan Connor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Does he or she send this list to anyone likely to be sending them mail?
> No. But they discuss it in public and semi-public forums with other SA users,
> don't they.


It's called open source developement. Keeping the list secret may sound
like a good idea but would probably be the first example of successfull
security through obscurity if it worked.

> And guess who is teaching them how to get spam into your mailbox?


Well, up to now SA does a pretty good job to keep my inbox clean. So
apparently the spammers are not investing too much effort into getting
around it.

Actually, it's not that surprising:
People who use spamfilters hate spam (duh!) and thus are extremely
unlikely to generate any revenue for the spammer. So the effort of
circumventing their filters is probably not worth it.

Spamfilters used by large webmail services are a totally different
story! Blocking all spam from hotmail etc. generates a big problem for
the spammers - this is where they are most likely to look for ways
around the filter. I don't know how many big sites use SA but as I
said: up to now it works fine for me ...

> The same people who are allegedly keeping it OUT of your mailbox.
> And they are fairly often the SAME people.


Are they? I'm sure you have evidence to back this accusation. And
if so - why does SA still work?

> If you want spam, then use SA and its relatives. If you don't, use elrav1
> and its relatives.


I don't know your program and if it's any good but shouting at your
potential users and wild accusations against your competitors are
generally not considered a good marketing strategy at least in the open
source community...

cu
Philipp



PS: Please use reasonable formatting - ragged postings full of empty
lines are very uncomfortable to read...


--
Dr. Philipp Pagel Tel. +49-89-3187-3675
Institute for Bioinformatics / MIPS Fax. +49-89-3187-3585
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1
85764 Neuherberg, Germany
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IDNET 'spammers' Spamtastic Spastic Broadband 0 11-04-2009 04:55 AM
How to stop spammers bringing our server down? Peter Broadband 30 11-12-2007 06:14 PM
Telewest/blueyonder are SPAMmers, yet again... The New Boy Broadband 4 03-27-2006 07:26 AM
Broadband allows spammers to send even more SPAM !!!!! Bruno Beam Broadband 2 12-22-2004 08:35 AM
Spammers masquerading as me Doug Laidlaw Linux Networking 1 07-25-2004 12:21 AM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11