(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason.TakeThisOut@ncoldns.com>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:12:59 -0800
<pan.2006.10.31.01.12.59.681736.TakeThisOut@ncoldns.com>:
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:03:14 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>> WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
>>>
>>> Yeesh...
>>>
>>>
>> Viruses can come in through ports such as 445, 137, 139. A router not
>> allowing outside packets through from these and other ports will drop the
>> packets on the floor
>
> It would also block all other services on those ports - essentially being
> a firewall.
>
> Now, let's open it up so it's actually allowing traffic _through_ on those
> ports. It's still a gateway... but now has *zero* effect on viruses
> coming through on those ports.
>
> So I repeat: WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
>
> Answer: nothing. A firewall can provide minimal protection against some,
> as can, say, a NAT router. A gateway, _as_ a gateway, does nothing.
>

Well, there is that; I'll admit I have no idea what a "gateway" is in
this context, then. Smile

Best I can do is an outgoing Squid proxy. Prior to my acquiring my
latest router that actually worked very well for outgoing connections to
the Web while insulating all but the victim machine (which obviously has
to straddle what passes for a DMZ on a dialup system) from the worst of
the attacks. It also cached things fairly well, which was a big help
when I only had 53k to play with.

Of course with NAT Squid becomes redundant, and I have a lot more
bandwidth now.

--
#191, ewill3.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 795

Mike wrote:

> In article <ei3fti$heq$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> writes:
>> >
>> >> Mike wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> >>> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>> >>>> Mike wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> <thad01.RemoveThis@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>> >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.RemoveThis@where.man> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
>> >>>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux
>> >>>>>>> machines, right? Why
>> >>>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>> >>>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>> >>>>>> by procmail.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it?
>> >>>>> Run Linux?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Mike
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Oh, looky looky!
>> >>>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all*
>> >>> computer users get viruses/spam/you name it!
>> >>>
>> >>> Mike
>> >>
>> >> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows*
>> >> *users* get them.
>> >
>> > No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
>> > common sense virus protection.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, Hadron, "linux kernel hacker", who needs virus protection
>> For his windows machine, the one he *only* uses for gaming.
>> ALl serious work is done on linux, right, Hadron?
>>
>> Now tell us: What "virus protection" is the right one for linux?
>> After all, there are currently (since years) exactly *zero* linux viruses
>> in the wild.
>> But then, I have to protect myself against those extremely dangerous
>> linux viruses, right, Hadron? Would you mind tell us more about this
>> extremely sensitive stuff? You seem soooo knowledgeable about linux
>> viruses
>>
>> >> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the
>> >> net get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the
>> >> OS one runs
>> >
>> > Did you figure that out? You have to be connected to the net? Well
>> > done!
>> >
>>
>> Oh, you could not find the line I was responding to?
>> Nevermind, comes time you will grow your very first working brain cell
>>
>> >>
>> >> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
>> >> differences
>> >
>> > Thank god you were here to explain how one must connect to the net to
>> > get spam!
>> >
>>
>> Well, after all Mike thinks *all* computer users get spam.
>> This certainly would include those computers never connected to the net
>
> I said no such thing. I said *I* don't get spam.
>

Oh. So *you* are the one without network connection

> Reading is *so* important.
>
> Mike

Good that we now have cleared that up

Did I already mention that you are a liar?
*Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly clear
that you are lying
--
Linux is for people who want to know why it works.
Mac is for people who don't want to know why it works.
DOS is for people who want to know why it does not work.
Windows is for people who don't want to know why it does not work.

George Wilson · External Since: Oct 30, 2006 Posts: 1

Peter KKKohlmann wrote:
|| *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
|| Without any exception.

Some more than others.

peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de
peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de

Peter KÃ¶hlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 1500

George Wilson wrote:

> Peter KKKohlmann wrote:
> || *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
> || Without any exception.
>
>
> Some more than others.
>
>
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de
> peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de

How intelligent

You haven't swallowed a fly by accident to achieve such mental highlights?
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
news:ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>
> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
> Without any exception.

This isn't strictly true. Normally, I'd assume you meant "*ALMOST*
everybody connected to the net and having an e-mail address gets spam", but
since you added the "Without any exception" clause, I guess you don't mean
"almost".

I have several e-mail addresses, and I do get spam on most of them.
However, there's one e-mail address on which I get zero spam. The reason for
that is that I've only given that particular e-mail address to five people,
and those five people are savy enough Windows users that their address books
don't get leaked.

So it wouldn't be hard to imagine that there exists in the world someone
like me, except they only have that one e-mail address which receives zero
spam, and none of the other e-mail addresses that receive some spam.

There are also several less interesting scenarios (e.g. they have an
e-mail address, but they never check it, so they don't actually "get" spam;
they have an e-mail address, but the SMTP server which delivers to it only
accepts e-mail from other users on the same LAN, instead of from the
Internet in general; etc.)

- Oliver

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 795

Oliver Wong wrote:

> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>> Without any exception.
>
> This isn't strictly true. Normally, I'd assume you meant "*ALMOST*
> everybody connected to the net and having an e-mail address gets spam",
> but since you added the "Without any exception" clause, I guess you don't
> mean "almost".
>
> I have several e-mail addresses, and I do get spam on most of them.
> However, there's one e-mail address on which I get zero spam. The reason
> for that is that I've only given that particular e-mail address to five
> people, and those five people are savy enough Windows users that their
> address books don't get leaked.
>

That simply means that the address routines of the spammers have not yet
made it to that particular address, nothing else
Spammers do not solely rely on harvesting existing addresses

> So it wouldn't be hard to imagine that there exists in the world
> someone
> like me, except they only have that one e-mail address which receives zero
> spam, and none of the other e-mail addresses that receive some spam.
>

It is not hard to imagine that by pure chance that particular address has
*not* *yet* received spam. It will

> There are also several less interesting scenarios (e.g. they have an
> e-mail address, but they never check it, so they don't actually "get"
> spam;

Invalid. They got it already. That they don't bother to empty their bin has
nothing to do with the reception

> they have an e-mail address, but the SMTP server which delivers to
> it only accepts e-mail from other users on the same LAN, instead of from
> the Internet in general; etc.)
>
> - Oliver
Then they are no longer directly connected to the internet. You can dream up
any number of cases where some element sits between the user and the
internet, like Spamassassin for example. In all those cases the spam was
delivered, but did not make it to the reception bin of the user.
He "received" it nonetheless. It does not matter if he sorted it out
himself or let some trained software do the work

Your "examples" amount to: "I did not *see* the spam, therefore I did not
receive it".
It is bullshit, naturally
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:ei5tk3$jhe$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>
> You can dream up
> any number of cases where some element sits between the user and the
> internet, like Spamassassin for example. In all those cases the spam was
> delivered, but did not make it to the reception bin of the user.
> He "received" it nonetheless. It does not matter if he sorted it out
> himself or let some trained software do the work
>
> Your "examples" amount to: "I did not *see* the spam, therefore I did not
> receive it".
> It is bullshit, naturally

Okay, I misunderstood your definition of "gets spam".

- Oliver

Shannon · External Since: Oct 30, 2006 Posts: 14

Peter KKKohlmann wrote:
> --
> It is bullshit, naturally

With you, it always is.

Tell us your "broken hand" story. *LOL*

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:31:17 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

>> Your "examples" amount to: "I did not *see* the spam, therefore I did
>> not receive it".
>> It is bullshit, naturally
>
> Okay, I misunderstood your definition of "gets spam".
>
> - Oliver

I would tend to think that any definition of "gets spam" which is based on
the notion of ignoring the problem isn't all that useful.

A spam is processed by one or more servers, services, apps, filters, etc,
etc, etc. That it never makes it to the inbox doesn't mean you can get
rid of all all this stuff other than the actual mailers; it just means
that the spam you did get was filtered before final delivery (to your
inbox).

Roy Culley · External Since: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 647

begin risky.vbs
<ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> writes:
> Mike wrote:
>
>> I said no such thing. I said *I* don't get spam.
>
> Oh. So *you* are the one without network connection

Clearly not.

>> Reading is *so* important.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Good that we now have cleared that up
>
> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it
> perfectly clear that you are lying

It is probably more likely that this Mike chap doesn't get much
'normal' email so is happy that so many people want to send him
email. What most regard as spam is no doubt the highlight of his day.

Look ma, yet another person wants me to buy viagra from them.
Ain't the Internet amazing. So many people want to help me
with my problem. Smile

--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:46:43 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>> Now, let's open it up so it's actually allowing traffic _through_ on
>> those ports. It's still a gateway... but now has *zero* effect on
>> viruses coming through on those ports.
>>
>> So I repeat: WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
>>
>> Answer: nothing. A firewall can provide minimal protection against
>> some, as can, say, a NAT router. A gateway, _as_ a gateway, does
>> nothing.
>>
>>
> Well, there is that; I'll admit I have no idea what a "gateway" is in this
> context, then. Smile

A gateway is a machine or device which allows traffic to move between
networks. So, for example, my gateway here is 192.168.10.254. The
machine at that IP address is a "gate" between my LAN and my ISP feed.

> Best I can do is an outgoing Squid proxy.

Got one of those, too, but that's a proxy, not a gateway.

> Of course with NAT Squid becomes redundant, and I have a lot more
> bandwidth now.

Umm... no, squid does not become redundant with NAT. Squid is a proxy,
which can, among other things, cache to reduce bandwidth - and Squid is
not something I'd tend to rely on as a security service. A filter to get
rid of, say, xxxx if I combine it with Dansguardian, but a security
service? Nope.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason.RemoveThis@ncoldns.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.10.30.23.28.55.82069@ncoldns.com...
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:31:17 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>>> Your "examples" amount to: "I did not *see* the spam, therefore I did
>>> not receive it".
>>> It is bullshit, naturally
>>
>> Okay, I misunderstood your definition of "gets spam".
>>
>
> I would tend to think that any definition of "gets spam" which is based on
> the notion of ignoring the problem isn't all that useful.
>
> A spam is processed by one or more servers, services, apps, filters, etc,
> etc, etc. That it never makes it to the inbox doesn't mean you can get
> rid of all all this stuff other than the actual mailers; it just means
> that the spam you did get was filtered before final delivery (to your
> inbox).

I had assumed that the definition of "gets spam" used involved the user
actually getting spam. As opposed to say, someone WANTING the user to get
spam, but failing to actually cause that user to receive spam, because of
filtering technology in place.

Obviously, spammers want everyone in the world to get spam, so by your
definitions, yes, everyone gets spam.

- Oliver

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:06:58 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

> I had assumed that the definition of "gets spam" used involved the
> user
> actually getting spam. As opposed to say, someone WANTING the user to get
> spam, but failing to actually cause that user to receive spam, because of
> filtering technology in place.
>
> Obviously, spammers want everyone in the world to get spam, so by your
> definitions, yes, everyone gets spam.
>
> - Oliver

Nope, you don't get it.

Okay, try this. Set up a mail server. On that server, set up a couple
hundred accounts, with typical addresses. Of those, post, say, half to
public areas - usenet, a few web sites, sign up for a few mailing lists,
etc.

Wait a week or three, see if the _rest_ of them don't start getting spam.

Now. Insert SpamAssassin or other apps onto the server, such that once
the spam reaches your server, it can be trapped or blocked before delivery
to the users' inboxes.

The spam _does_ arrive at your server. The spam _is_ processed by your
server. The spam _has been_ delivered right to your living room. If your
anti-spam tools are good enough, it _might_ not make it to your inbox, but
it _has_ made it to _your_ server. And it's done so via addresses which
_do_ exist on your server (and, probably, a lot that don't, as well.)

So. Now that you're getting 3,000 spams per minute - like I am - into the
server... *remove* SpamAssassin. See if you see any difference.

The difference is this: in both cases, the users *are* getting spam. In
one scenario, however, you are expending vast amounts of server resources
filtering out what not to deliver to their inboxes; in the other, you're
simply letting all email be delivered.

If the users weren't getting spam, there would be _no_ difference in the
two scenarios, and you wouldn't need SpamAssassin.

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong DeleteThis @castortech.com>
wrote
on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:06:58 GMT
<CwK1h.39048$P7.28574@edtnps89>:
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason DeleteThis @ncoldns.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.10.30.23.28.55.82069@ncoldns.com...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:31:17 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>>> Your "examples" amount to: "I did not *see* the spam, therefore I did
>>>> not receive it".
>>>> It is bullshit, naturally
>>>
>>> Okay, I misunderstood your definition of "gets spam".
>>>
>>
>> I would tend to think that any definition of "gets spam" which is based on
>> the notion of ignoring the problem isn't all that useful.
>>
>> A spam is processed by one or more servers, services, apps, filters, etc,
>> etc, etc. That it never makes it to the inbox doesn't mean you can get
>> rid of all all this stuff other than the actual mailers; it just means
>> that the spam you did get was filtered before final delivery (to your
>> inbox).
>
> I had assumed that the definition of "gets spam" used involved the user
> actually getting spam. As opposed to say, someone WANTING the user to get
> spam, but failing to actually cause that user to receive spam, because of
> filtering technology in place.
>
> Obviously, spammers want everyone in the world to get spam, so by your
> definitions, yes, everyone gets spam.
>
> - Oliver
>

It gets a bit complicated. Basically, in order for a user
to receive spam, several things must happen.

[1] The box must do a fetch on port 25, 109, 110, or 143.
There may be other ports but these are smtp, pop2, pop3,
and imap; the important thing is that the user explicitly
initiates this action (or the sysadmin of the box he's on,
which might be the user as well, sets up a mechanism on his
behalf to do so -- and in some systems the sysadmin might
be the spammer himself, if the spam is actually malware which
communicates with a nefarious SMTP agent for instructions).

[2] The user's email address must be known to the spammer
-- mine, for instance, is there for every damned spambot
to read, and guess what I get a lot of. Smile

But he has
to look in the right place.

[3] The spambot has to send out the spam, usually on port
25, to a relay. That's the easy part.

In order for a user to see the spam one might have to use
an image-capable newsreader (some of the spam I get here at
work makes no sense unless I explicitly load the images;
presumably this is so that human eyes can see certain
words that might not make it through Bayesian filters).

Now, from a philosophical standpoint, the user could
be construed as guilty of fetching spam, as the user is
actively fetching mail. The problem is that the fetch
step in [1] could fetch either spam or useful mail; it's
up to the user to figure out which, and the user would
probably prefer legitimate email (FSVO "legitimate";
family members would get high marks but some might love
raunchy things that they explicitly ask for).

Since spam actually works (and is very cheap at the price)
some users might be guilty of rewarding it as well. Me,
I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it. Smile

Filtration can be done on several levels. The user could
simply throw it away. The sysadmin on his local box
might have set up a daemon such as spamassassin or some
such; I'd have to look for the details. His ISP might
have done a little work (Earthlink routinely filters out
viruses, IINM -- those it can catch). The relay used by
the spammer might disallow the sending because it doesn't
trust the sender (I've had that happen, though not for
actual spam; basically the email system won't take anyone
from a DHCP-hosted account) or because *it* detects a virus
or spam. The spammer's machine might be blacklisted, which
means any relay aware of the blacklist will refuse to
propagate the mail and/or refuse the initial connect.

And of course the spammer's machine might crash.

So I don't know...but this is definitely yet another
multilayer problem.

--
#191, ewill3 DeleteThis @earthlink.net
Murphy was an optimist.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3577

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> Of those, post, say, half to public areas - usenet, a few web
> sites, sign up for a few mailing lists, etc.

21 words and 6 commas?

> The spam _does_ arrive at your server. The spam _is_ processed by
> your server. The spam _has been_ delivered right to your living
> room. If your anti-spam tools are good enough, it _might_ not make
> it to your inbox, but it _has_ made it to _your_ server. And it's
> done so via addresses which _do_ exist on your server (and, probably,
> a lot that don't, as well.)

Do _you_ know _what_ a _pain_ it is _to_ read _your_ posts with _all_ the
freakin' _underscores_?

huh?

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason DeleteThis @ncoldns.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.10.31.20.19.42.660244@ncoldns.com...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:06:58 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> I had assumed that the definition of "gets spam" used involved the
>> user
>> actually getting spam. As opposed to say, someone WANTING the user to get
>> spam, but failing to actually cause that user to receive spam, because of
>> filtering technology in place.
>>
>> Obviously, spammers want everyone in the world to get spam, so by
>> your
>> definitions, yes, everyone gets spam.
>>
>> - Oliver
>
>
> Okay, try this. Set up a mail server. On that server, set up a couple
> hundred accounts, with typical addresses. Of those, post, say, half to
> public areas - usenet, a few web sites, sign up for a few mailing lists,
> etc.
>
> Wait a week or three, see if the _rest_ of them don't start getting spam.

See, that's where you made a mistake. Recall my claim earlier about an
e-mail account which received zero spam? It's on a domain I own. I created
ONE account on that domain. And I gave that address to 5 trusted friends. I
have not signed up any e-mails from that domain to any websites, mailing
lists, usenets, etc. Nobody knows about that domain, let alone any e-mail
address on that domain, except those 5 trusted friends.

Again, I claim that I'm not the only person who's done this. And I
further claim it isn't unplausible that someone out there has done this, and
doesn't have any "normal" e-mail accounts, and thus gets absolutely zero
spam.

>
> Now. Insert SpamAssassin or other apps onto the server, such that once
> the spam reaches your server, it can be trapped or blocked before delivery
> to the users' inboxes.
>
> The spam _does_ arrive at your server. The spam _is_ processed by your
> server. The spam _has been_ delivered right to your living room. If your
> anti-spam tools are good enough, it _might_ not make it to your inbox, but
> it _has_ made it to _your_ server. And it's done so via addresses which
> _do_ exist on your server (and, probably, a lot that don't, as well.)
>
> So. Now that you're getting 3,000 spams per minute - like I am - into the
> server... *remove* SpamAssassin. See if you see any difference.
>
> The difference is this: in both cases, the users *are* getting spam. In
> one scenario, however, you are expending vast amounts of server resources
> filtering out what not to deliver to their inboxes; in the other, you're
> simply letting all email be delivered.
>
> If the users weren't getting spam, there would be _no_ difference in the
> two scenarios, and you wouldn't need SpamAssassin.

Like I said, we were using different definitions. I distinguish between
the server getting spam, and the user getting spam. You don't make that
distinction. For example, I consider a person using white-lists which
require replies to activate as someone who probably doesn't actually "get"
spam. But that's under my definition of "gets spam" (i.e. the user, as
opposed to the server, gets the spam). Under your definition, this
white-list using person DOES get spam. Fine. If that's the definition you
want to use, I have no further disagreements.

- Oliver

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5565

begin oe_protect.scr
Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> espoused:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>>>
>>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>>> Without any exception.
>>
>> This isn't strictly true. Normally, I'd assume you meant "*ALMOST*
>> everybody connected to the net and having an e-mail address gets spam",
>> but since you added the "Without any exception" clause, I guess you don't
>> mean "almost".
>>
>> I have several e-mail addresses, and I do get spam on most of them.
>> However, there's one e-mail address on which I get zero spam. The reason
>> for that is that I've only given that particular e-mail address to five
>> people, and those five people are savy enough Windows users that their
>> address books don't get leaked.
>>
>
> That simply means that the address routines of the spammers have not yet
> made it to that particular address, nothing else
> Spammers do not solely rely on harvesting existing addresses
>

Indeed. Besides, windows machines regularly have their whole address books
remove without the owners even knowing. Why do these off-topic people
come here?

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
You can't evaluate a man by logic alone.
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5565

begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Culley <rgc.RemoveThis@nodomain.none> espoused:
>
> It is probably more likely that this Mike chap doesn't get much
> 'normal' email so is happy that so many people want to send him
> email. What most regard as spam is no doubt the highlight of his day.
>
> Look ma, yet another person wants me to buy viagra from them.
> Ain't the Internet amazing. So many people want to help me
> with my problem. Smile

>

Heheh Smile

)

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
You can't evaluate a man by logic alone.
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3

Mike · External Since: Nov 04, 2006 Posts: 43

In article <ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter KÃ¶hlmann <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote:

> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly clear
> that you are lying

Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
you have no idea what you are talking about.

But then, you are Linux Loser, still trying to force all replies to your
messages to your Linux Loser newsgroup, so it's understandable that you
have no clue.

Mike

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:17:11 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

> See, that's where you made a mistake. Recall my claim earlier about
> an
> e-mail account which received zero spam? It's on a domain I own. I
> created ONE account on that domain. And I gave that address to 5 trusted
> friends. I have not signed up any e-mails from that domain to any
> websites, mailing lists, usenets, etc. Nobody knows about that domain,
> let alone any e-mail address on that domain, except those 5 trusted
> friends.

So now it's just a matter of time until one of them gets pooched. Or
forwards an email with your address to someone else who gets pooched. See
how that works?

That one doesn't get any spam this week means nothing.

> Like I said, we were using different definitions. I distinguish
> between
> the server getting spam, and the user getting spam.

If the user doesn't get any spam, the server doesn't need to run
SpamAssassin.

Simple enough?

(OS) The thing I *hate* most about Microsoft Windows.

(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.