Text 601, 202 rader
Skriven 2004-09-14 20:39:14 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 598 av Geo. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Spammers faster than the good guys....
==================================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C49A9A.E63BDB20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First, I'm still looking for you to provide real world examples that =
anyone does this along with a description of how it benefits them.
As for your claim of no MX or MX pointing to a non-existent IP, you =
better explain why that doesn't address the issue you claim that = spammers
have. I thinnk you are off in never never land. No MX record = should be
faster than a valid MX as the NDR is abandoned. Sillier yet, = you are now
arguing that a spammer would not want to use mike miller's = SMTP server
because it is too slow.
Rich
"Geo." <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:41479c5e@w3.nls.net...
I did reply to your message that starts off with the incorrect =
question of "Why
would a spammer do something like this that provides a traceable =
record that
is a legal liability for them". That's an incorrect assumption, it's =
not
traceable.
As far as no MX or MX which points to a non existent IP, that doesn't =
solve the
problem of getting rid of bounces quickly, it just slows down the =
servers they
are trying to spam which in turn slows them down. Why do you think =
they us AOL
so often? If you use some little server then everything backs up. =
These guys
are trying to crank out a billion emails a day.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:41477f00$1@w3.nls.net...
You didn't even make any attempt to reply to my message. Try again =
this
time explaining why it is beneficial for a spammer to behave as you =
suggest
instead of the simpler alternatives that do not require this =
additional
liability.
Rich
"Geo." <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:41477891@w3.nls.net...
How do you figure? You think a spammer doesn't have a hundred =
domains that
can't be tracked back to him?
Rich, have you (in the past year or two) even tried to track down a =
spammer?
Ok example, pretend for a minute the MX points to you and you don't =
know the
owner and track down the bounces from doh@theyscrewedusagain.com and =
that's a
.COM, you should try it with a .INFO
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:4144aa77$1@w3.nls.net...
Again you make this silly suggestion. Why would a spammer do =
something
like
this that provides a tracable record that is a legal liability for =
them.
They
should just as easily have no MX record or an MX record that points =
to an
invalid IP. Both of which have the same effect of mail to their =
domain not
being deliverable which is all you claim they want. It's one thing =
to create
a
liability by spammer for which they derive revenue. It's another to =
create
one
which provides liability only.
Rich
------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C49A9A.E63BDB20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.186" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> First, I'm still looking =
for you to=20
provide real world examples that anyone does this along with a = description
of=20
how it benefits them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> As for your claim of no MX =
or MX=20
pointing to a non-existent IP, you better explain why that doesn't = address
the=20
issue you claim that spammers have. I thinnk you are off in never =
never=20
land. No MX record should be faster than a valid MX as the NDR is=20
abandoned. Sillier yet, you are now arguing that a spammer would = not
want=20
to use mike miller's SMTP server because it is too slow.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo." <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:41479c5e@w3.nls.net">news:41479c5e@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>I =
did=20
reply to your message that starts off with the incorrect question of=20
"Why<BR>would a spammer do something like this that =
provides a=20
traceable record that<BR>is a legal liability for them". That's an =
incorrect=20
assumption, it's not<BR>traceable.<BR><BR>As far as no MX or MX which =
points=20
to a non existent IP, that doesn't solve the<BR>problem of getting rid =
of=20
bounces quickly, it just slows down the servers they<BR>are trying to =
spam=20
which in turn slows them down. Why do you think they us AOL<BR>so =
often? If=20
you use some little server then everything backs up. These guys<BR>are =
trying=20
to crank out a billion emails a day.<BR><BR>Geo.<BR><BR><BR>"Rich" =
<@>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:41477f00$1@w3.nls.net">news:41477f00$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
You didn't even make any attempt to reply to my message. Try =
again=20
this<BR>time explaining why it is beneficial for a spammer to behave =
as you=20
suggest<BR>instead of the simpler alternatives that do not require =
this=20
additional<BR>liability.<BR><BR>Rich<BR><BR> "Geo." <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:41477891@w3.nls.net">news:41477891@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; How=20
do you figure? You think a spammer doesn't have a hundred domains=20
that<BR> can't be tracked back to him?<BR><BR> Rich, have =
you (in=20
the past year or two) even tried to track down a =
spammer?<BR><BR> Ok=20
example, pretend for a minute the MX points to you and you don't know=20
the<BR> owner and track down the bounces from <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:doh@theyscrewedusagain.com">doh@theyscrewedusagain.com</A>=
and=20
that's a<BR> .COM, you should try it with a .INFO<BR><BR> =20
Geo.<BR><BR> "Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:4144aa77$1@w3.nls.net">news:4144aa77$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
Again you make this silly suggestion. Why would a spammer do=20
something<BR>like<BR> this that provides a tracable record that =
is a=20
legal liability for them.<BR>They<BR> should just as easily have =
no MX=20
record or an MX record that points to an<BR> invalid IP. =
Both of=20
which have the same effect of mail to their domain not<BR> being =
deliverable which is all you claim they want. It's one thing to=20
create<BR>a<BR> liability by spammer for which they derive=20
revenue. It's another to create<BR>one<BR> which provides=20
liability only.<BR><BR> =
Rich<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C49A9A.E63BDB20--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|