Unless, of course, the optonline addresses are forged. Optonline
is pretty pro-active towards spamming. From a simple task, I can
only send no more than 50 email addresses per email. Certainly
can be worked around, but people do that with other ISPs. Since
Cablevision is the provider for a few million subs, it is a bit
unwieldy to block us. I could also say, yahoo, msn, Comcast, and
the like also appear in spam addresses, so optonline isn't only
in this regard. (BTW, not flaming, just discussing points, and
optonline may well be a source of spam/UCE)
Matt Murray
And the following from Prof. David Farber's list:
>Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:27:22 -0400
>From: Tim O'Connor <tim@roughdraft.org>
>Subject: Another twist on spam
>To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
>
>
>In a new variation on spam -- new for me, anyhow -- I began to
>receive bounces from AOL last night. I thought they were from a
>mailing list I manage, which has some AOL subscribers. Then I
>read a message and found a note explaining the failed delivery:
>a statement embedded in the bounce from AOL stated that too many
>UCE messages were being received from host, so my messages were
>ALL being rejected by AOL.
>
>When I examined the bounces, it was clear that they came from
>many disparate sources clearly NOT my domain; this was evident
>in the headers. The forgeries all claimed to come from my
domain,
>"dachshund DOT com." But each message had some insanely fake
>username before the @ sign, and each was directed at anywhere
from
>three to six AOL victims.
>
>This was not a case of a "SoBig" harvesting addresses from an
>address book. These were apparently randomized values (e.g.,
>"l67ucwsjm") with my domain appended.
>
>I run a good spam filter to save myself from the onslaught of
trash.
>Now on the other side of the fence, impersonated dozens of times
>over, with no recourse but to send messages to postmasters of
>domains I extract from the headers, I'm losing my "live and let
>live" tolerance.
>
>I'm used to seeing apparently fake AOL and Yahoo addresses, but
now,
>with my (low-profile) domain grabbed by fakers, I can only watch
the
>hijacking and hope not to end up blacklisted more widely. If it
is
>the proverbial tip of the iceberg, how do I protect myself?
What
>do you do if "farber DOT net" is next, not because of a virus at
>work, but because of a scammer selling ways to enlarge body
parts?
>
>Then as a final insult, AOL chooses to block UCE based on the
stated
>(forged) "From:" field rather than from the envelope or the
"Received
>from" data, both of which clearly state the true host.
>
>I admit that I oscillate between tolerance (one person's spam is
another
>person's useful message) and fury (wanting to see vigilantes
triumph on
>the spam battlefield). Today, I admit that I would readily
reach for
>the digital shotgun if I had one.
>
>I suppose I should be grateful that spammers haven't (yet)
appropriated
>my actual address, since, as it stands, at least anyone with
1/10 a
>brain can read the headers and tell they are looking at a
forgery.
>
>--tim o'connor
-------------------------------------
I have been suggesting a good hanging for a while now -djf
>Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:00:52 -0400
>From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
>Subject: Re: [IP] Another twist on spam
>To: Tim O'Connor <tim@roughdraft.org>
>Cc: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
>
> > >When I examined the bounces, it was clear that they came
from
> > >many disparate sources clearly NOT my domain; this was
evident
> > >in the headers. The forgeries all claimed to come from my
domain,
> > >"dachshund DOT com." But each message had some insanely
fake
> > >username before the @ sign, and each was directed at
anywhere from
> > >three to six AOL victims.
>
>Congratulations. You've been "joe-jobbed". That's a slang
term for
>one of the many sleazy tactics that spammers use to try to (a)
evade
>anti-spam measures and (b) shift blame elsewhere. In your case,
it sounds
>like you were just the next random victim to be used; other
folks have
>experienced obvious deliberate targeting (usually after they've
caused
>some discomfort for a spammer) to the tune of several millions
spams.
>
>Those of us who have been active in the anti-spam movement for
>a long time have been pointing out things like this (and network
>hijacking, and open proxy scanning/hijacking, and domain
hijacking, and
>nameserver hijacking, and denial-of-service attacks, and
mailbombing,
>and forge-subscription attacks, etc.) for years. Unfortunately,
there
>are a lot of under-informed people out there who still --
foolishly --
>cling to the "gosh, it's not a problem for me, why don't you
just hit
>delete?" mentality, instead of being perceptive enough to
recognize that
>spam is currently the net's #1 problem by a wide margin, and
that the
>myriad effects of it are costing us ALL a heck of a lot of time
and money.
>
>As to the digital shotgun, I can't approve of that. However, I
am in full
>agreement with FTC Chairman Orson Swindle, who said "What we
need are
>a couple of good hangings". (Much tidier than the the shotgun,
you see.)
>
>---Rsk
-------------------------------------
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Van-der-Mey" <autox@webcentrix.net>
To: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Those of you using AOL
> At 8:58 AM -0400 9/17/03, Matt Murray wrote:
> >I hate to disparage this company, but those of you on AOL need
to
> >know what AOL is doing to "fight" the virus and spam coming
into
> >their system. Rather than use legitimate technology, they just
> >block certain ISPs (like mine optonline, Cablevision's
internet
> >service). For most stuff it doen't make a difference, but for
> >those of you who are using it as a business account, some of
your
> >customers might not be getting through to you.
>
> A quick Google search of "optonline.com spam blacklist' turned
up
> indications that your ISP does harbor Spammers and has fould
its way
> into several blacklists.
>
> You should be complaining to your own ISP (for harboring
SPAMMERS) at
> least as much as you complain about AOLs practices.
> --
> Erik Van-der-Mey
http://erik.vandermey.net/
> 2002 VW Silver Hare
http://vw.com/GTI337/
|