Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful (was Re: Look at
First-of-all, thanks to B. for helping me get my from header straightened out.
> From email@example.com Wed Aug 6 16:43:57 2003
> On Wednesday 06 August 2003 21:33, Lance Simmons wrote:
> > My spam box is full of plausible sounding subjects from familiar
> > sounding names.
> You're unlucky. Mine is full of things like "Improve your life w
> eokglo ruu fhrcf" from "Jed Wray" <firstname.lastname@example.org>. I have thousands
> of them - with tell-tale garbage in the Subject line and obviously
> fake from addresses. I wonder why they do it...
> And the ones with plausible subjects are mostly of three types:
> 1 - empty
> (the purpose of these is a mystery to me).
> 2 - masses of nonsense html and random word lists, such as:
> "...coxcomb merchandising exaggerates bravely humidifying
> exhibits adaptation acclaims adulation talents schooler
> meditating port theme bobbing tensional creators pocket
> (I suppose these are aimed at spam filters, but the effort
> seems wasted, as there is usually _no_ meaningful text and
> only broken links.
> 3 - empty but with an incomplete or broken base64-encoded... well
> something: as they are broken, I don't have the first idea
> what the sender thought they were sending.
> So about 80% of my spamcan is unreadable anyway. I wonder why they do
> It is easy to get annoyed and self-righteous about spam, but really,
> it is mostly just pathetic...
It IS pathetic, Richard. Like that fellow who sends me , a linux runner, a
dozen M$ viruses a week. And about a quarter of the addresses on his list
are obviously invalid. Like <email@example.com>
At least I assume he is still sending them. Don't get spam anymore.
For Linux/Bash users: Eliminate spam with the Mailbox-Sentry-Program.
See: http://tinyurl.com/inpd for the scripts and docs.