Combating spam...

[pgwenthold]

So I got a spam email today, with a "Remove me" option. The Remove Me ends up being an email to send to the proper person (supposedly) to get you off the email list. I'll grant that.

But here's the problem: the email gets bounced because (get this) the mailbox is full.

Yeah, no doubt!

Where should I send an email to tell the administrator about it?

Should administrator@(the place).com work? Or admin@... Or what?

What if I get spam from one of the common net providers (AOL, yahoo, etc) that does not have an opt-out option? How can I fix it?

As much as I hate spam, I only really get mad when they do not provide an option to get you off the list (or don't take you off the list, when you do; BTW, who can I complain to when that happens? I have started recording all the places to which I unsubscribe so I know that they are actually doing it)

 

[geni]

Often clicking that Remove me box mearly tells the person sending you spam that the adress is live so they can sell it on for more and you end up with evern more spam.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Never, never, NEVER react to a spam mail. Never, never, NEVER click on a link in a spam mail. Use your spam filter, most ISPs provide a spam filter.

If you use Outlook, use the rule generator. Right click in the mail, select create rule, select mail from this address, select move to specified folder, select folder as deleted mails, click finish. Presto! Any further mail from that sender goes right into the waste basket.

They change the sender ID ever so often, so you will want to create rules that redirect any mails with "viagra" "Penis enlargement" etc. etc. etc. in the body text to the waste basket. Experiment.

Hans

 

[FXT]

A lot of stuff you'd want to read about Spam:

http://paulgraham.com/antispam.html

And, as always, Google is your friend.

I have to agree, never ever respond to Spam, you'll only tell the spammer that your mail addy is valid.

Outlook rules are a way of dealing with the stuff, but consider Bayesian filtering, as well. (Also available as Outlook-addin.)

Those filters, after a period of suitable training, can achieve accuracy in the high 90s, WITHOUT false positives.

Your fight for "unsubscriptions" is useless, I'm afraid. The percentage of spammers, who actually respect such delisting, is minuscule.

SPAM is best filtered and ignored.

If you want to report some blatant misuse (though deciding on that without time-consuming study of mail headers, etc, would be almost impossible), try mailing abuse@whatever-domain-concerned.tld.


Once again, SPAM is best filtered and ignored.

FXT

 

[evildave]

My ISP has a spam eating 'bot between me and the incomming mail. Works great.

750 spam messages a month in that box that I don't get.

Even AOL's crummy and retarded service blocks SPAM on the back end.

Time to shop an ISP that does something about this.

The only down-side is occasionally a piece of legitimate mail gets stuck in the filter. I blame the spammers who made that filter necessary.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Here's a little stat which I read in the newspaper (no idea where their source was, but food for thought):

Number of spam-mails sent a year: 300 million
Number of purchases made as a result of spam: 300

 

[garys_2k]

...consider Bayesian filtering, as well. (Also available as Outlook-addin.)

Those filters, after a period of suitable training, can achieve accuracy in the high 90s, WITHOUT false positives.

I use "Outclass" and it has been very good, after training. Get it here:

http://www.vargonsoft.com/Outclass/