Klarinet Archive - Posting 000095.txt from 2002/04

From: Mark Gresham <mgresham@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] shocking?
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:05:31 -0500

(Quoted segments to which this refers are below my signature.)
I began using "SpamCop" reporting services recently, and most of these
more explicit or annoying propagations appear to be coming from a very
small number of actual sources, who are trying to disguise spam origins
and pathways and are constantly finding new "open relays" to exploit for
propagation.
While I only use their free reporting service at this time (see
http://www.spamcop.net not "spamcop.com"), there are services available
from SpamCop for individuals, small companies, and even large companies
(like Jeff's) which are more sophisticated methods of blocking spam than
locally filtering of keywords like "sex," which can have unintended
results (such as the one noted). Usually automated numeric IP checking
and "blackhole" protocols work better to eliminate the most offensive
spamming. Even the small amount of reporting I do (because I like to be
proactive against these sleazebags) seems to have an impact on thwarting
especially the objectives of those who propagate the worst spam. It
takes some effort on my part, but the results are worth it.
Back in the old days, before commercialization of what has become
known as "the internet," administrators used to isolate systems that
allowed spamming origination from their machines, and not let them have
access to the network at large--it worked well in those days, with paths
to the network were fewer and connections to other systems prized.
But today, where tracking and closing exploits of open relays is a
major spam fighting technique, there is still a similarity in that
stopping spam (or at least keeping it very limited) requires an
individual proactive attitude by all of those who are offended; "just
hit delete" doesn't work, and encourages spam by passive acceptance of
its propagation. Rather than "deperate" filtering, I suggest rather to
go on the offensive with some anti-spam tools.

-- Mark Gresham
-- mgresham@-----.com
-- http://www.markgresham.com/
-- Lux Nova Press
-- http://www.luxnova.com/

jsshankles wrote:
>
> I know this is getting way off topic, and I apologize. However, I have to
> speak to the comment about "silly filters." I work on the team that runs
> the email system for a fairly large company (18,000 employees worldwide).
[...]
> We have tried to be reasonable concerning what we filter, and would never
> filter on something as simple or short as "sex", however, please understand
> that when most companies start filtering email, it is out of desperation.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Black [mailto:clarinet1@-----.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:31 PM
> To: Klarinet List
> Subject: [kl] shocking?
>
> A little while ago, I received an email from the list owner of an online IT
> development and database related forum which advised me that my company's
> email filters had been bouncing several of the list's messages. I learnt
> that any email which contained the word "sex" was automatically bounced. So
> every email along the lines of "I have a database which holds client info
> (name, age, sex, marital status etc.) ..." [...]

---------------------------------------------------------------------