Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ways of killing spamites!

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Dustbuster

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Hello Anti-spamites,

As I have been battling spam over the last several months, I have
noticed several "pratical" methods that seem to work well to reduce
spam. So far, I have been able to reduce the amounts of spam that I
receive by about 90% due to the usage of these tatics. I used to
receive SO MUCH SPAM that I had to close my e-accounts every 3 months.
Not now... :o)

There is a couple simple ways to reduce the amount os spam that you
receive.

1) Spambots have a tendancy to "visit" your website and steal your
e-mail address(es). I would suggest that you use the following
javascript program (works with Netscape & IE) to include your e-mail
addresses on a web page. Spambots are unable to translate this script
which indirectly keeps them from "stealing" your address... :o)

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
<!--
var name = "webmaster";
var domain = "mydomain.com";
document.write("<A HREF=\'mailto:" + name + "@" + domain + "\'>");
document.write("Send us e-mail!</A>");
// -->
</SCRIPT>

2) Surf the web for "Bulk E-Mailer" sites. This is where about 90% of
spam originates. These bulk e-mailers are the ones who "steal your
e-mail address." They are also the ones who create massive bulk e-mail
(spam) lists. Once they have collected and stored your e-mail address
into their spam list, they then sell their lists to want-a-be future
spammers. Most spammers are not "smart enough" to make their own list -
so they just buy one from the bulk e-mailers. Many times, the bulk
e-mailers are the ones who distribute "spamming software" on the net,
too!

How do you deal with bulk e-mailers? The simple answer is to complain
to the website administers about the spamming site. Most sites like
Tripod or Geocities have anti-spamming / bulk e-mailers site clauses.
If a bulk e-mailer publishes their site on one of these free services,
they are almost always in violation of their user agreements which will
qualify them for immediate termination. So far, I have gotten 14 bulk
e-mailer's sites closed because of this.

Well, these are my suggestions. If you have any ideas... Let me know!!!

Dustbuster.


itj

unread,
May 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/11/99
to
Thanks, Dustbuster! Let's see how these work....

ALISON
Kills: 5; suspensions: 1; warnings: 2; public flamings: 1; trolls
exposed: 1

Ilona Kersey

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 21:31:12 -0700, Dustbuster
<dustb...@somewhere.nowhere.bad> wrote:

>1) Spambots have a tendancy to "visit" your website and steal your
>e-mail address(es). I would suggest that you use the following
>javascript program (works with Netscape & IE) to include your e-mail
>addresses on a web page. Spambots are unable to translate this script
>which indirectly keeps them from "stealing" your address... :o)

i was wondering how i got on so many spam-lists! i went to my website
and took the mailto: right off!!! the only people who see my site
(friends) have my email address anyway, so i'll see if this helps ....
thanks for the tip!

:)
ijk

Dustbuster

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
Hello Ilona,

There is a way of having your e-mail address(es) added to your site
(with out having spambots steal your address). I have been using the
following anti-spam javascript on my site for three months and have
successfully eliminated all spam! (100%)

(Yes, I know that some people do not like to use improved technology
like javascript -- however, if it kills spam, I will use it!)

Check out the following script:

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
<!--
var name = "yourname";
var domain = "yourdomain.com";


document.write("<A HREF=\'mailto:" + name + "@" + domain + "\'>");

document.write(name + "@" + domain + "</A>");
// -->
</SCRIPT>

Dustbuster

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
Hello Morely Dotes,

I agree with you that poisoning spambots can be fun. However, a new
generation of bots is unfortunately "now on the loose" which is
seriously reducing the effectiveness of spambot poisoning. I have been
waging a programming war with spambots for quite a while and have
discovered the following info...

1) When a spambot visit someone's website, before collecting and adding
the addresses to its' database, the program first counts how many
addresses are on the page. If more than (usually 20) addresses are on a
page, the spambot quickly decides that it is a spamtrap and completely
ignores it.

2) The new generation of spambots check the domain name of each e-mail
address to see if the domain actually exists. If the domain does not
exist, the e-mail address is immediately trashed. (Helps to reduced any
poison e-mail addresses that it swallowed.)

3) It is reported that the newest generation of hightech-spambots are no
longer creating spam lists anymore. Instead, each spambot is given a
listing of spams that have to be sent out that day. When a spambot
spots your e-mail address, (instead of adding your e-mail address to
its' database), the bot instead picks out a couple of spams from it's
database and proceeds to spam you right on the spot. Theses new bots
are much more of a headache to deal with.

Spammers are absolutely loving these new bots because it makes it much
easier to "obtain" fresh e-mail address from the web -- Unfortunately,
this is not good news for us fellow anti-spammers.

If you have any ideas about how we can "poison" these new spambots,
please let me know. Ideas would be sincerely appreciated!

Dustbuster

___________________
Morely Dotes wrote:


>
> In article <3758A377...@nowhere.somewhere.anywhere.bad>, Dustbuster <now...@nowhere.somewhere.anywhere.bad> wrote:
> >
> >(Yes, I know that some people do not like to use improved technology
> >like javascript -- however, if it kills spam, I will use it!)
>

> Some people don't beleive that javascript is "improved" technology (I'm among
> them), but I echo your sentiment regarding measures against spam. I find it
> much more fun, however, to run a webpoison site and let the 'bots have all the
> email address (which are guaranteed 100 percent bogus and undeliverable) they
> want.
>
> --
> [ No "courtesy copies" via e-mail, please. ]
> ATTENTION SPAMMERS: This anti-spammer complies with all anti-spam laws.
> If you wish to have your Internet access removed, just send your spam to
> any of my email addresses with any subject line and I will immediately
> attend to your removal. Your ISP will also be checked for ORBS and RBL
> compliance. Have a Nice Day.
> [There is no Lumber Cartel, but if there were, I'd be Unit 34]

Morely Dotes

unread,
Jun 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/6/99
to

Morely Dotes

unread,
Jun 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/6/99
to
In article <3759F016...@nowhere.somewhere.anywhere.bad>, Dustbuster <now...@nowhere.somewhere.anywhere.bad> wrote:
>
>1) When a spambot visit someone's website, before collecting and adding
>the addresses to its' database, the program first counts how many
>addresses are on the page. If more than (usually 20) addresses are on a
>page, the spambot quickly decides that it is a spamtrap and completely
>ignores it.

I never have more than 10 addresses per page anyhow.

>If you have any ideas about how we can "poison" these new spambots,
>please let me know. Ideas would be sincerely appreciated!

Use real domain names. BLACKHOLE.COM, WAREZ.ORG, and so forth - the domains
that resolve to localhost.

Dustbuster

unread,
Jun 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/7/99
to
Wow! I think that you have some great ideas here! I will definitely
have to give them a try against spambots. However, I do have one
question, though.

Wouldn't using "real server names" possibly constitute fraud?

Let me know...
Dustbuster.

__________________________________________________________________

Morely Dotes

unread,
Jun 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/8/99
to
In article <375BDE29...@nowhere.somewhere.anywhere.bad>, Dustbuster <now...@nowhere.somewhere.anywhere.bad> wrote:
>
>Wow! I think that you have some great ideas here! I will definitely
>have to give them a try against spambots. However, I do have one
>question, though.
>
>Wouldn't using "real server names" possibly constitute fraud?

Not if you stick to the ones that resolve to localhost. Try it - send email
to "roo@localhost" and see where it goes.

0 new messages