Bob Bob wrote:

I agree however with your comment about hams and privacy. The VK
equivalent of the FCC also has an online database complete with full
address details! I am not hard to find, just difficult to get to!

Lets face it though, obnoxious people do need to be anonymous. I
certainly don't want to now them! grin


Toouche', Bob!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
The abhorrence of anonyminity by those of us who live in, or come from, a
rural society (or an academic society) is palpable. One who tries to hide
must have a nefarious reason to do so. SPAM avoidance is a make-weight
reason. ... my opinion. Mac N8TT



I get huge amounts of spam at this address, but it is because it has the
dread initial/number/domain combo, not because I post to newsgroups with
my real name. The spammers simply send out mail with a gazillion
combinations of initials/numbers/domains, and hope something hits.

In my other address, I post with real address and name too, and get very
little spam.

I wonder just how much newsgroup harvesting is doen these days. It
wouldn't be very efficient.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Sal M. Onella wrote:
"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
...
snip

One who tries to hide must have a nefarious reason to do so. SPAM
avoidance is a make-weight
reason.

I'm happy for you that you have the courage of your convictions. Sure, I
"hide" for spam avoidance but I add my callsign a couple of times a month
for anybody who cares to do a lookup.

Your posting history indicates that you're a good egg, Sal. But the
company you end up being lumped in with is a big price to pay.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike

Well if I was creating a databases of addresses to SPAM (shudder!) I
would add on an SMTP engine that tries to connect to the host. If I got
a "550 mailbox not found" or something similar I wouldn't ever bother
trying again. It would be fairly easy then to have a known vs invalid
addresses. That along with (say) grabbing names from telephone books and
creating addresses with it for every domain that could be found would
build up a credible database to work with. Once the engine is perfected
a 95% failure rate is still a success..

I am sure there are institutions around that do this, if just to sell a
useful database to their customers. There are however far better and
more slimy programmers around than me!

I would suspect (but don't know) that ISP SPAM mitigation processes are
helping a lot nowadays. There have also been laws passed and ISP
acceptable use policies that are making things a little bit harder for
the SPAM creators... Most mail servers also have a lot of lookup/checks
that go on nowadays when they receive a connection. I think about half
at the place I work fail to connect because they are requesting relay,
have an invalid source domain/reverse lookup or something else that
prevents the chaff getting through. Those that do then have the SPAM
pattern filter trounce about 95% of.

Cheers Bob VK2YQA

Michael Coslo wrote:

I wonder just how much newsgroup harvesting is doen these days. It
wouldn't be very efficient.