Re: [Boost-users] Spamming through boost???
Well, I googled for my name and found on the first page an entry from the boost archive at Gmane:
From: Ovanes Markarian <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> Subject: [mpl::map] pregeneration of ... Is there smth, that I miss? With Kind Regards, Ovanes Markarian.
Sebastian Redl wrote:
Ovanes Markarian wrote:
Now I really think, there must be email servers inbetween, which simply log the sender and put
We had this discussion a few months ago. In short, the easiest way to get at your e-mail address is to simply register with the boost
accounts don't really make their presence known. Should all accounts that just listen and never
To parse the string: <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> is really silly and can be easily done with your regex lib. With Kind Regards, Ovanes Markarian On Thu, December 7, 2006 10:31, John Maddock wrote: them to the spamming lists. list, and then have a bot listening and collecting. It's pretty much the same thing that some list archives do. You can't really prevent it, either. Unlike spammers, such post be banned?
In addition the Boost mailing list is available via a newsgroup bridge, and gets archived on the
web, indexed by Google etc (although I confess a Google search for your address didn't show anything up). As Sebastian has already said, these spammers are cunning folks whow really will stop at nothing to get these addresses :-(
You
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
With Kind Regards, Ovanes Markarian
Ovanes Markarian wrote:
I googled for my name and found on the first page an entry from the boost archive at Gmane:
From: Ovanes Markarian <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> Subject: [mpl::map] pregeneration of ... Is there smth, that I miss? With Kind Regards, Ovanes Markarian.
To parse the string: <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> is really silly and can be easily done with your regex lib.
Gmane has this to say on the topic, quoted from http://gmane.org/faq.php: <quote> # I figured out how to crack the address obfuscation in the web interface! You just replace "<at>" with "@"! You guys are obviously not 3l33+! Er, yes. However, current accepted wisdom in the anti-spam community is that spam harvesting bots do not do even trivial unobfuscation, so nothing more than this trivial scheme is necessary. If that changes, the obfuscation scheme will change, too. </quote> Seems like this is no longer true. And Gmane now provides an address encryption scheme, see http://gmane.org/tmda.php. List administrators can request this to be activated for the whole list. HTH, Markus
Markus Schöpflin wrote:
Ovanes Markarian wrote:
I googled for my name and found on the first page an entry from the boost archive at Gmane:
From: Ovanes Markarian <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> Subject: [mpl::map] pregeneration of ... Is there smth, that I miss? With Kind Regards, Ovanes Markarian.
To parse the string: <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> is really silly and can be easily done with your regex lib.
Gmane has this to say on the topic, quoted from http://gmane.org/faq.php:
<quote> # I figured out how to crack the address obfuscation in the web interface! You just replace "<at>" with "@"! You guys are obviously not 3l33+!
Er, yes. However, current accepted wisdom in the anti-spam community is that spam harvesting bots do not do even trivial unobfuscation, so nothing more than this trivial scheme is necessary. If that changes, the obfuscation scheme will change, too. </quote>
It's almost impossible to keep an e-mail address non-spammable nowadays (short of not using it at all); a number of viruses/trojans harvest e-mail addresses from infected computers.
Peter Dimov wrote:
Markus Schöpflin wrote:
Ovanes Markarian wrote:
I googled for my name and found on the first page an entry from the boost archive at Gmane:
From: Ovanes Markarian <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> Subject: [mpl::map] pregeneration of ... Is there smth, that I miss? With Kind Regards, Ovanes Markarian.
To parse the string: <om_boost <at> xxx.xxx> is really silly and can be easily done with your regex lib.
Gmane has this to say on the topic, quoted from http://gmane.org/faq.php:
<quote> # I figured out how to crack the address obfuscation in the web interface! You just replace "<at>" with "@"! You guys are obviously not 3l33+!
Er, yes. However, current accepted wisdom in the anti-spam community is that spam harvesting bots do not do even trivial unobfuscation, so nothing more than this trivial scheme is necessary. If that changes, the obfuscation scheme will change, too. </quote>
It's almost impossible to keep an e-mail address non-spammable nowadays (short of not using it at all); a number of viruses/trojans harvest e-mail addresses from infected computers. =
Right, but ensuring that only those people that actually did contact you by private email have your real address on their computers helps quite a bit, in my experience. -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
On 12/22/06, Andreas Huber <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
It's almost impossible to keep an e-mail address non-spammable nowadays (short of not using it at all); a number of viruses/trojans harvest e-mail addresses from infected computers. =
Right, but ensuring that only those people that actually did contact you by private email have your real address on their computers helps quite a bit, in my experience.
I have this address in numerous places unobfuscated. I get tons of spam, but I rarely see more than a handful a week, which is a much smaller amount than emails from this list that I don't read, so it doesn't bother me. P.S. I wonder if ⒰⒮⒤⒩⒢ ⒮⒯⒭⒜⒩⒢⒠ ⒞⒪⒟⒠⒫⒪⒤⒩⒯⒮ would be effective for blocking harvesting...
me22 wrote:
Right, but ensuring that only those people that actually did contact you by private email have your real address on their computers helps quite a bit, in my experience.
I have this address in numerous places unobfuscated. I get tons of spam, but I rarely see more than a handful a week, which is a much smaller amount than emails from this list that I don't read, so it doesn't bother me.
What do you do about false positives? -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
On 12/24/06, Andreas Huber <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap@yahoo.com> wrote:
What do you do about false positives?
Remain blissfully ignorant? That said, I just looked through the newest 500 spam in my spam folder and there weren't any. I used to go through on a regular basis to check, but after never finding anything I've been letting that slide. I do have an alternate email for more serious/important things, though.
me22 wrote: [snip]
I do have an alternate email for more serious/important things, though.
I see, your approach is not that different from mine then... -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
participants (3)
-
Andreas Huber -
Markus Schöpflin -
me22 -
Ovanes Markarian -
Peter Dimov