Apology to rec.aviation...

[Ron Parsons]

Sometimes I forget that this is a rec.aviation group and not for pros
like AvSig on CompuServe used to be when it was sponsored by ASI and
John G. ran it.

Still there are some here who have been there and done that and care to
share with each other and others.

But there are also those who think that playing with their Goggle all
day is a real world experience.

So I'm going to self-moderate by the simple mechanism of putting anyone
who asks for "cite" into the kill file.

I don't mung my email address or bother to reply to emails from those
who do. My reasoning is simple, I believe in quality like Boeing and
Macintosh.

I'll try to keep in mind that not all are professionals here.

Thanks to all,

--
Ron

[Tex Houston]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> But there are also those who think that playing with their Goggle all
> day is a real world experience.

Thanks to all,
>
> --
> Ron

I Googled Goggle and didn't get much.

Tex

[[email protected]]

Ron Parsons > wrote:

>Sometimes I forget that this is a rec.aviation group and not for pros
>like AvSig on CompuServe used to be when it was sponsored by ASI and
>John G. ran it.
>
>Still there are some here who have been there and done that and care to
>share with each other and others.
>
>But there are also those who think that playing with their Goggle all
>day is a real world experience.
>
>So I'm going to self-moderate by the simple mechanism of putting anyone
>who asks for "cite" into the kill file.
>
>I don't mung my email address or bother to reply to emails from those
>who do. My reasoning is simple, I believe in quality like Boeing and
>Macintosh.
>
>I'll try to keep in mind that not all are professionals here.
>
>Thanks to all,

Sounds very noble and forthright Ron...I used to think like that
a short few years ago when I first started out on here. I used to
have my email address in the open. The spam increased slowly till
it was about 40/50 spams a day...then it increased drastically
till at one time, in a 12 hour period, I counted 950 spam msgs.

This shut my email down completely, who can sift through a couple
thousand email chaff for the odd grain of wheat? I had to change
my address (which I had had for quite a few years). Quite
disgusting. I now munge. YMMV. Good luck in any case.
--

-Gord.

[Bob McKellar]

" wrote:

> Ron Parsons > wrote:
>
> >Sometimes I forget that this is a rec.aviation group and not for pros
> >like AvSig on CompuServe used to be when it was sponsored by ASI and
> >John G. ran it.
> >
> >Still there are some here who have been there and done that and care to
> >share with each other and others.
> >
> >But there are also those who think that playing with their Goggle all
> >day is a real world experience.
> >
> >So I'm going to self-moderate by the simple mechanism of putting anyone
> >who asks for "cite" into the kill file.
> >
> >I don't mung my email address or bother to reply to emails from those
> >who do. My reasoning is simple, I believe in quality like Boeing and
> >Macintosh.
> >
> >I'll try to keep in mind that not all are professionals here.
> >
> >Thanks to all,
>
> Sounds very noble and forthright Ron...I used to think like that
> a short few years ago when I first started out on here. I used to
> have my email address in the open. The spam increased slowly till
> it was about 40/50 spams a day...then it increased drastically
> till at one time, in a 12 hour period, I counted 950 spam msgs.
>
> This shut my email down completely, who can sift through a couple
> thousand email chaff for the odd grain of wheat? I had to change
> my address (which I had had for quite a few years). Quite
> disgusting. I now munge. YMMV. Good luck in any case.
> --
>
> -Gord.

I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email addresses,
posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with hundreds of
individual pages, each with my email on it.

Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.

However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about 50 to 100
spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.

Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from the
people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am the only
one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!

Bob McKellar, posting in the clear

[D. Strang]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote
>
> I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email addresses,
> posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with hundreds of
> individual pages, each with my email on it.
>
> Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
> contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.
>
> However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about 50 to 100
> spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.
>
> Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from the
> people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am the only
> one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!

I get about 60 a day.

I use Spam Pal to kill them. Works like a champ. I'm seeing maybe 1 or 2
a day that get through the filter, but my in-box is back in control.

http://www.spampal.org/

I use a Barracuda Box at the office: http://www.barracudanetworks.com/

I also include this page on all my web pages (hidden from users of course):

http://www.detritus.org/cgi-bin/spidersmack.cgi

What it does, is cause the spammers to spam themselves. I get about
four robot hits a day, so they are really killing themselves.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " wrote:
>
> > Ron Parsons > wrote:
> >
> > >Sometimes I forget that this is a rec.aviation group and not for pros
> > >like AvSig on CompuServe used to be when it was sponsored by ASI and
> > >John G. ran it.
> > >
> > >Still there are some here who have been there and done that and care to
> > >share with each other and others.
> > >
> > >But there are also those who think that playing with their Goggle all
> > >day is a real world experience.
> > >
> > >So I'm going to self-moderate by the simple mechanism of putting anyone
> > >who asks for "cite" into the kill file.
> > >
> > >I don't mung my email address or bother to reply to emails from those
> > >who do. My reasoning is simple, I believe in quality like Boeing and
> > >Macintosh.
> > >
> > >I'll try to keep in mind that not all are professionals here.
> > >
> > >Thanks to all,
> >
> > Sounds very noble and forthright Ron...I used to think like that
> > a short few years ago when I first started out on here. I used to
> > have my email address in the open. The spam increased slowly till
> > it was about 40/50 spams a day...then it increased drastically
> > till at one time, in a 12 hour period, I counted 950 spam msgs.
> >
> > This shut my email down completely, who can sift through a couple
> > thousand email chaff for the odd grain of wheat? I had to change
> > my address (which I had had for quite a few years). Quite
> > disgusting. I now munge. YMMV. Good luck in any case.
> > --
> >
> > -Gord.
>
> I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email addresses,
> posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with hundreds of
> individual pages, each with my email on it.
>
> Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
> contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.
>
> However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about 50 to 100
> spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.
>
> Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from the
> people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am the only
> one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!
>
> Bob McKellar, posting in the clear

After the Swen virus hit, I was getting over a hundred a day. I finally got
Mailwasher and bounced them all. The robots pick up continious bounces
apparently. I'm back to normal again now, but I'll never use my un munged
email address on Usenet again.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[[email protected]]

"D. Strang" > wrote:

>
>What it does, is cause the spammers to spam themselves. I get about
>four robot hits a day, so they are really killing themselves.
>

With all these things that increase the traffic load I'm afraid
that it'll put a crimp in the flow and choke off good email
traffic exchange...then where'll we be?...I think it'll
eventually get so that email will be useless...hope they can get
a grip on it soon.
--

-Gord.

[Michael Wise]

In article t>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> > ...
> > I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email addresses,
> > posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with hundreds of
> > individual pages, each with my email on it.
> >
> > Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
> > contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.
> >
> > However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about 50 to 100
> > spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.
> >
> > Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from the
> > people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am the only
> > one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!


> After the Swen virus hit, I was getting over a hundred a day. I finally got
> Mailwasher and bounced them all. The robots pick up continious bounces
> apparently...

Not really. The way most of these sorts of viruses operate these days is
by turning the infected person's computer into a mail relay without
their knowledge. The term for this sort of thing is "owning" a machine.
They then scan the Outlook and Outlook Express data files as well as web
cache and mine out all email addresses. The infected machine's new
stealth mail relay mechanism is then used to send copies of the virus to
every mined address...and it uses a return address of any one of the
mined addresses. Any of the targeted addresses which actually result in
another infection are in turn going to do the same process. This is why
these viruses spread so rapidly.


Why should virus writers want to turn peoples' home and business
computers into stealth mail relays? Easy, they are paid to do so by
professional spam gangs who will then turn around and use all these new
mail relays to spew out their spam. Some 80% is relayed through "owned"
MS Windows PC's on home cable and dsl networks (some 10,000 "owned
machines)...and some 90% spamvertises Western sites hosted in China.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people using Microsoft operating
systems either don't care or are just to damn ignorant to secure their
machines (with anti-virus software they keep current).

That said, there's a lot ISP's and companies could be doing to stop or
majorly contain such quick and penetrating viral outbreaks. Blocking
this sort of stuff at the mail server or network border are not that
difficult to implement....and should be required of every ISP and it
should be free. I have such protection on all my clients' email servers,
and it has caught and blocked 100% of attempted virus relays before they
can make into my customers' mail boxes.


It's only so many sysadmins at large ISP's are too lazy and/or
incompetent, that consumers are left thinking Mailwasher and products
like it are necessary. They are only necessary to make up for their
provider's incompetence.


So what happens when you're using a product like Mailwasher and it tags
and rejects a virus-infected email? Not much, these sorts of emails have
forged return addresses 99.9% of the time...and will either go to
somebody who scratches their head wondering why they're being accused of
sending a virus...or to a bogus address. The same goes for spam. The
only way to tell the real source (well at least the last hop) of spam is
by looking at the IP which relayed it to your smtp server (either by
looking at your message headers or your mail server's logs).


With that IP address, you have enough info to root out who is
responsible for abuse from that net block and make complaints
accordingly. The user-level anti-spam software is largely worthless in
actually having an effect on stopping that spam from spamming you again
or rejecting to the right people. It is reasonably effective of keeping
the garbage out of your mail box...which I guess is as much as most
end-users care about. The fact remains, if the provider did its job at
the server level, you wouldn't need such programs. I know that's a big
"if", but there are plenty of IPS's (as well as email hosters) to choose
from who actually know a thing or two about blocking spam and viruses.


Of course, you could always get a Mac and never have to worry about
these sorts of viruses. ; )

--Mike

[Tarver Engineering]

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> So what happens when you're using a product like Mailwasher and it tags
> and rejects a virus-infected email? Not much,

Plenty happens, Dudley is now spamming people for no good reason.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> >What it does, is cause the spammers to spam themselves. I get about
> >four robot hits a day, so they are really killing themselves.
> >
>
> With all these things that increase the traffic load I'm afraid
> that it'll put a crimp in the flow and choke off good email
> traffic exchange...then where'll we be?...I think it'll
> eventually get so that email will be useless...hope they can get
> a grip on it soon.


The tools necessary for getting a grip on it are already widely
available.

The problem is twofold: 1) ISPs and companies which are two lazy or
incompetent to use those tools and 2) a system which does not adequately
prosecute some of these scum using existing laws...not to mention those
of the weak,ineffective and drafted by mainsleaze spammers, CAN-Spam act.


--Mike

[Dudley Henriques]

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email
addresses,
> > > posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with hundreds
of
> > > individual pages, each with my email on it.
> > >
> > > Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
> > > contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.
> > >
> > > However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about 50 to
100
> > > spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.
> > >
> > > Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from the
> > > people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am the
only
> > > one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!
>
>
> > After the Swen virus hit, I was getting over a hundred a day. I finally
got
> > Mailwasher and bounced them all. The robots pick up continious bounces
> > apparently...
>
> Not really. The way most of these sorts of viruses operate these days is
> by turning the infected person's computer into a mail relay without
> their knowledge. The term for this sort of thing is "owning" a machine.
> They then scan the Outlook and Outlook Express data files as well as web
> cache and mine out all email addresses. The infected machine's new
> stealth mail relay mechanism is then used to send copies of the virus to
> every mined address...and it uses a return address of any one of the
> mined addresses. Any of the targeted addresses which actually result in
> another infection are in turn going to do the same process. This is why
> these viruses spread so rapidly.
>
>
> Why should virus writers want to turn peoples' home and business
> computers into stealth mail relays? Easy, they are paid to do so by
> professional spam gangs who will then turn around and use all these new
> mail relays to spew out their spam. Some 80% is relayed through "owned"
> MS Windows PC's on home cable and dsl networks (some 10,000 "owned
> machines)...and some 90% spamvertises Western sites hosted in China.
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how many people using Microsoft operating
> systems either don't care or are just to damn ignorant to secure their
> machines (with anti-virus software they keep current).
>
> That said, there's a lot ISP's and companies could be doing to stop or
> majorly contain such quick and penetrating viral outbreaks. Blocking
> this sort of stuff at the mail server or network border are not that
> difficult to implement....and should be required of every ISP and it
> should be free. I have such protection on all my clients' email servers,
> and it has caught and blocked 100% of attempted virus relays before they
> can make into my customers' mail boxes.
>
>
> It's only so many sysadmins at large ISP's are too lazy and/or
> incompetent, that consumers are left thinking Mailwasher and products
> like it are necessary. They are only necessary to make up for their
> provider's incompetence.
>
>
> So what happens when you're using a product like Mailwasher and it tags
> and rejects a virus-infected email? Not much, these sorts of emails have
> forged return addresses 99.9% of the time...and will either go to
> somebody who scratches their head wondering why they're being accused of
> sending a virus...or to a bogus address. The same goes for spam. The
> only way to tell the real source (well at least the last hop) of spam is
> by looking at the IP which relayed it to your smtp server (either by
> looking at your message headers or your mail server's logs).
>
>
> With that IP address, you have enough info to root out who is
> responsible for abuse from that net block and make complaints
> accordingly. The user-level anti-spam software is largely worthless in
> actually having an effect on stopping that spam from spamming you again
> or rejecting to the right people. It is reasonably effective of keeping
> the garbage out of your mail box...which I guess is as much as most
> end-users care about. The fact remains, if the provider did its job at
> the server level, you wouldn't need such programs. I know that's a big
> "if", but there are plenty of IPS's (as well as email hosters) to choose
> from who actually know a thing or two about blocking spam and viruses.
>
>
> Of course, you could always get a Mac and never have to worry about
> these sorts of viruses. ; )
>
> --Mike

First of all, my computer is protected by a very good anti virus program. In
fact, the virus was never an issue for me. What WAS an issue were the 100 or
so emails, (infected or not infected) that were sitting on the Earthlink
server just waiting for me to hit the download button so I could sit here
for two hours waiting for the crap to get downloaded so I could delete it.
The problem for me, as it was for many others, was the unacceptable download
time taken to get these bogus emails down to where they could be deleted
without opening them. I think we all know that the answer to this is for the
ISP to have adequate programs installed on their servers to eliminate these
problems, but the simple truth is that most do not.
My antivirus program (Computer Associates) is completely up to date and will
catch any virus' infected messages after downloading, but who the hell wants
to sit on their ass for two hours and wait while all the mess is coming in
at 56kbs; I sure don't! :-)
After complaining along with a million other people to the ISP's to install
software that catches all this crap, I, along with a million other people
out here installed Mailwasher so that we can see what the hell was sitting
on the server and get rid of the crap BEFORE downloading it.
Bottom line is that until the ISP's start nailing this stuff on their
servers, the general public is left to programs like Mailwasher to help them
delete these messes from the server, or else get a Mac! I don't want a Mac!
Mailwasher works just fine for me. In fact, the spam level is practically
non existent at this point and Mailwasher isn't really necessary at
all.....until next time that is!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Michael Wise]

In article t>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> > > > ...
> > > > I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email
> addresses,
> > > > posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with hundreds
> of
> > > > individual pages, each with my email on it.
> > > >
> > > > Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
> > > > contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.
> > > >
> > > > However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about 50 to
> 100
> > > > spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.
> > > >
> > > > Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from the
> > > > people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am the
> only
> > > > one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!
> >
> >
> > > After the Swen virus hit, I was getting over a hundred a day. I finally
> got
> > > Mailwasher and bounced them all. The robots pick up continious bounces
> > > apparently...
> >
> > Not really. The way most of these sorts of viruses operate these days is
> > by turning the infected person's computer into a mail relay without
> > their knowledge. The term for this sort of thing is "owning" a machine.
> > They then scan the Outlook and Outlook Express data files as well as web
> > cache and mine out all email addresses. The infected machine's new
> > stealth mail relay mechanism is then used to send copies of the virus to
> > every mined address...and it uses a return address of any one of the
> > mined addresses. Any of the targeted addresses which actually result in
> > another infection are in turn going to do the same process. This is why
> > these viruses spread so rapidly.
> >
> >
> > Why should virus writers want to turn peoples' home and business
> > computers into stealth mail relays? Easy, they are paid to do so by
> > professional spam gangs who will then turn around and use all these new
> > mail relays to spew out their spam. Some 80% is relayed through "owned"
> > MS Windows PC's on home cable and dsl networks (some 10,000 "owned
> > machines)...and some 90% spamvertises Western sites hosted in China.
> >
> > It never ceases to amaze me how many people using Microsoft operating
> > systems either don't care or are just to damn ignorant to secure their
> > machines (with anti-virus software they keep current).
> >
> > That said, there's a lot ISP's and companies could be doing to stop or
> > majorly contain such quick and penetrating viral outbreaks. Blocking
> > this sort of stuff at the mail server or network border are not that
> > difficult to implement....and should be required of every ISP and it
> > should be free. I have such protection on all my clients' email servers,
> > and it has caught and blocked 100% of attempted virus relays before they
> > can make into my customers' mail boxes.
> >
> >
> > It's only so many sysadmins at large ISP's are too lazy and/or
> > incompetent, that consumers are left thinking Mailwasher and products
> > like it are necessary. They are only necessary to make up for their
> > provider's incompetence.
> >
> >
> > So what happens when you're using a product like Mailwasher and it tags
> > and rejects a virus-infected email? Not much, these sorts of emails have
> > forged return addresses 99.9% of the time...and will either go to
> > somebody who scratches their head wondering why they're being accused of
> > sending a virus...or to a bogus address. The same goes for spam. The
> > only way to tell the real source (well at least the last hop) of spam is
> > by looking at the IP which relayed it to your smtp server (either by
> > looking at your message headers or your mail server's logs).
> >
> >
> > With that IP address, you have enough info to root out who is
> > responsible for abuse from that net block and make complaints
> > accordingly. The user-level anti-spam software is largely worthless in
> > actually having an effect on stopping that spam from spamming you again
> > or rejecting to the right people. It is reasonably effective of keeping
> > the garbage out of your mail box...which I guess is as much as most
> > end-users care about. The fact remains, if the provider did its job at
> > the server level, you wouldn't need such programs. I know that's a big
> > "if", but there are plenty of IPS's (as well as email hosters) to choose
> > from who actually know a thing or two about blocking spam and viruses.
> >
> >
> > Of course, you could always get a Mac and never have to worry about
> > these sorts of viruses. ; )



> First of all, my computer is protected by a very good anti virus program. In
> fact, the virus was never an issue for me.

Which is a good thing. It would be even better if the biggies like
Earthlink filtered such viruses such that they never made it to your
mail box in the first place....because for every smart and prepared user
on Earthlink such as yourself, there are probably five who are not.


> What WAS an issue were the 100 or
> so emails, (infected or not infected) that were sitting on the Earthlink
> server just waiting for me to hit the download button so I could sit here
> for two hours waiting for the crap to get downloaded so I could delete it.
> The problem for me, as it was for many others, was the unacceptable download
> time taken to get these bogus emails down to where they could be deleted
> without opening them.


Right, and the tools are available to Earthlink which would allow them
to block about 90% of the spam you receive and accurately tag as spam
(but not block) some 90% of the remaining 10%.


> I think we all know that the answer to this is for the
> ISP to have adequate programs installed on their servers to eliminate these
> problems, but the simple truth is that most do not.


Indeed, but there are always alternate providers or even plain email
hosters who do. People need to speak to companies like Earthlink in the
only language they care about and understand: $$. By customers
continuing to pay for their services, they have little incentive to
change. To add insult to injury, the end-user gets to a point where
he/she has to spend extra $$ for software to bring their mail box back
into something resembling control...when the ISP should be doing that.



> My antivirus program (Computer Associates) is completely up to date and will
> catch any virus' infected messages after downloading, but who the hell wants
> to sit on their ass for two hours and wait while all the mess is coming in
> at 56kbs; I sure don't! :-)


Agreed. Just think if Earthlink actually gave a rat's a** about their
incoming spam or the amount of "owned" Windows PCs on their
consumer-grade DSL networks?

Even so, there for years have been tools which will allow you to
scan/read/delete your email while it still sits on your mail server.
That way, you can delete before downloading any messages you don't want.

POPmonitor (http://www.vechtwijk.nl/dev/popmonitor/) and Mail Siphon
(http://www.maliasoft.com/us/mailsiphon.html) are two of several such
tools which come to mind.



> After complaining along with a million other people to the ISP's to install
> software that catches all this crap, I, along with a million other people
> out here installed Mailwasher so that we can see what the hell was sitting
> on the server and get rid of the crap BEFORE downloading it.


You can thank Earthlink for that.



> Bottom line is that until the ISP's start nailing this stuff on their
> servers, the general public is left to programs like Mailwasher to help them
> delete these messes from the server,


Or use an ISP or email hoster who does nail the stuff on their servers.



--Mike

[Dudley Henriques]

I think you and I are in total agreement on these issues. About the ISP's; I
finally chose Earthlink about 3 years ago after going through a bunch of
them where cutoffs and issues were everyday companions. Actually, aside from
the server issue, Earthlink has been a fairly good move for me. They keep
the news server up and running most of the time which is good, and the price
is right (senior discount :-) I don't surf all that much and e-mail and the
newsgroups are my main interest for the computer, so a DSL, or a cable modem
hasn't really come up around the house as an option. The old 56kbs modem
works fine for us.
I think Earthlink got the message after the Swen hit. They got clobbered!!
Everybody was bitching at them to get their act together on the servers.
Everything seems to be working much better now in my area at least.
Those "robots" I was talking about seem to only be part of the problem with
your email address being picked up on the Internet. I understand that it
only takes 1 infected computer owned by someone who has your address in
their address book to start an exponential series of this chain Spam. At the
heart of the Swen mess, I was seeing about 100 of those 143.0kb messages
sitting on the server waiting to be downloaded. There's no way of knowing
whether you getting these originates from an infected address book somewhere
or your email address being un-munged on Usenet. I munged as you can see,
and the number of the bad messages went down immediately to much lower
levels. Also, if I had been picked up by someone with an infected computer,
they might have "cleaned up" their machine of Swen finally :-)) Anyway, I'm
fairly back to normal now and hoping for the best as far as the future
goes!!
Dudley


"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article t>,
> > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email
> > addresses,
> > > > > posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with
hundreds
> > of
> > > > > individual pages, each with my email on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
> > > > > contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about
50 to
> > 100
> > > > > spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from
the
> > > > > people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am
the
> > only
> > > > > one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!
> > >
> > >
> > > > After the Swen virus hit, I was getting over a hundred a day. I
finally
> > got
> > > > Mailwasher and bounced them all. The robots pick up continious
bounces
> > > > apparently...
> > >
> > > Not really. The way most of these sorts of viruses operate these days
is
> > > by turning the infected person's computer into a mail relay without
> > > their knowledge. The term for this sort of thing is "owning" a
machine.
> > > They then scan the Outlook and Outlook Express data files as well as
web
> > > cache and mine out all email addresses. The infected machine's new
> > > stealth mail relay mechanism is then used to send copies of the virus
to
> > > every mined address...and it uses a return address of any one of the
> > > mined addresses. Any of the targeted addresses which actually result
in
> > > another infection are in turn going to do the same process. This is
why
> > > these viruses spread so rapidly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why should virus writers want to turn peoples' home and business
> > > computers into stealth mail relays? Easy, they are paid to do so by
> > > professional spam gangs who will then turn around and use all these
new
> > > mail relays to spew out their spam. Some 80% is relayed through
"owned"
> > > MS Windows PC's on home cable and dsl networks (some 10,000 "owned
> > > machines)...and some 90% spamvertises Western sites hosted in China.
> > >
> > > It never ceases to amaze me how many people using Microsoft operating
> > > systems either don't care or are just to damn ignorant to secure their
> > > machines (with anti-virus software they keep current).
> > >
> > > That said, there's a lot ISP's and companies could be doing to stop or
> > > majorly contain such quick and penetrating viral outbreaks. Blocking
> > > this sort of stuff at the mail server or network border are not that
> > > difficult to implement....and should be required of every ISP and it
> > > should be free. I have such protection on all my clients' email
servers,
> > > and it has caught and blocked 100% of attempted virus relays before
they
> > > can make into my customers' mail boxes.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's only so many sysadmins at large ISP's are too lazy and/or
> > > incompetent, that consumers are left thinking Mailwasher and products
> > > like it are necessary. They are only necessary to make up for their
> > > provider's incompetence.
> > >
> > >
> > > So what happens when you're using a product like Mailwasher and it
tags
> > > and rejects a virus-infected email? Not much, these sorts of emails
have
> > > forged return addresses 99.9% of the time...and will either go to
> > > somebody who scratches their head wondering why they're being accused
of
> > > sending a virus...or to a bogus address. The same goes for spam. The
> > > only way to tell the real source (well at least the last hop) of spam
is
> > > by looking at the IP which relayed it to your smtp server (either by
> > > looking at your message headers or your mail server's logs).
> > >
> > >
> > > With that IP address, you have enough info to root out who is
> > > responsible for abuse from that net block and make complaints
> > > accordingly. The user-level anti-spam software is largely worthless in
> > > actually having an effect on stopping that spam from spamming you
again
> > > or rejecting to the right people. It is reasonably effective of
keeping
> > > the garbage out of your mail box...which I guess is as much as most
> > > end-users care about. The fact remains, if the provider did its job at
> > > the server level, you wouldn't need such programs. I know that's a big
> > > "if", but there are plenty of IPS's (as well as email hosters) to
choose
> > > from who actually know a thing or two about blocking spam and viruses.
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, you could always get a Mac and never have to worry about
> > > these sorts of viruses. ; )
>
>
>
> > First of all, my computer is protected by a very good anti virus
program. In
> > fact, the virus was never an issue for me.
>
> Which is a good thing. It would be even better if the biggies like
> Earthlink filtered such viruses such that they never made it to your
> mail box in the first place....because for every smart and prepared user
> on Earthlink such as yourself, there are probably five who are not.
>
>
> > What WAS an issue were the 100 or
> > so emails, (infected or not infected) that were sitting on the Earthlink
> > server just waiting for me to hit the download button so I could sit
here
> > for two hours waiting for the crap to get downloaded so I could delete
it.
> > The problem for me, as it was for many others, was the unacceptable
download
> > time taken to get these bogus emails down to where they could be deleted
> > without opening them.
>
>
> Right, and the tools are available to Earthlink which would allow them
> to block about 90% of the spam you receive and accurately tag as spam
> (but not block) some 90% of the remaining 10%.
>
>
> > I think we all know that the answer to this is for the
> > ISP to have adequate programs installed on their servers to eliminate
these
> > problems, but the simple truth is that most do not.
>
>
> Indeed, but there are always alternate providers or even plain email
> hosters who do. People need to speak to companies like Earthlink in the
> only language they care about and understand: $$. By customers
> continuing to pay for their services, they have little incentive to
> change. To add insult to injury, the end-user gets to a point where
> he/she has to spend extra $$ for software to bring their mail box back
> into something resembling control...when the ISP should be doing that.
>
>
>
> > My antivirus program (Computer Associates) is completely up to date and
will
> > catch any virus' infected messages after downloading, but who the hell
wants
> > to sit on their ass for two hours and wait while all the mess is coming
in
> > at 56kbs; I sure don't! :-)
>
>
> Agreed. Just think if Earthlink actually gave a rat's a** about their
> incoming spam or the amount of "owned" Windows PCs on their
> consumer-grade DSL networks?
>
> Even so, there for years have been tools which will allow you to
> scan/read/delete your email while it still sits on your mail server.
> That way, you can delete before downloading any messages you don't want.
>
> POPmonitor (http://www.vechtwijk.nl/dev/popmonitor/) and Mail Siphon
> (http://www.maliasoft.com/us/mailsiphon.html) are two of several such
> tools which come to mind.
>
>
>
> > After complaining along with a million other people to the ISP's to
install
> > software that catches all this crap, I, along with a million other
people
> > out here installed Mailwasher so that we can see what the hell was
sitting
> > on the server and get rid of the crap BEFORE downloading it.
>
>
> You can thank Earthlink for that.
>
>
>
> > Bottom line is that until the ISP's start nailing this stuff on their
> > servers, the general public is left to programs like Mailwasher to help
them
> > delete these messes from the server,
>
>
> Or use an ISP or email hoster who does nail the stuff on their servers.
>
>
>
> --Mike

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I think you and I are in total agreement on these issues. About the ISP's;
I
> finally chose Earthlink about 3 years ago after going through a bunch of
> them where cutoffs and issues were everyday companions. Actually, aside
from
> the server issue, Earthlink has been a fairly good move for me. They keep
> the news server up and running most of the time which is good, and the
price
> is right (senior discount :-) I don't surf all that much and e-mail and
the
> newsgroups are my main interest for the computer, so a DSL, or a cable
modem
> hasn't really come up around the house as an option. The old 56kbs modem
> works fine for us.

Stop bouncing messages and I'll agree with you too.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

>Of course, you could always get a Mac and never have to worry about
>these sorts of viruses. ; )
>
>--Mike

Yep.

--
Ron

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:45:06 GMT,
Michael Wise attempted to say .....

> In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
> > >What it does, is cause the spammers to spam themselves. I get about
> > >four robot hits a day, so they are really killing themselves.
> > >
> >
> > With all these things that increase the traffic load I'm afraid
> > that it'll put a crimp in the flow and choke off good email
> > traffic exchange...then where'll we be?...I think it'll
> > eventually get so that email will be useless...hope they can get
> > a grip on it soon.
>
>
> The tools necessary for getting a grip on it are already widely
> available.
>
> The problem is twofold: 1) ISPs and companies which are two lazy or
> incompetent to use those tools and 2) a system which does not adequately
> prosecute some of these scum using existing laws...not to mention those
> of the weak,ineffective and drafted by mainsleaze spammers, CAN-Spam act.

I have maintained for some time now that the SPAMMED, by the act of faking
an address from a real ISP are stealing from the ISP.

Prosecute them as the thieves they are

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article t>,
on Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:32:13 GMT,
Dudley Henriques attempted to say .....

>
> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> > > > ...
> > > > I was well over 100 spams a day, due to having multiple email
> addresses,
> > > > posting to the news groups a lot, and having a web site with hundreds
> of
> > > > individual pages, each with my email on it.
> > > >
> > > > Changing the email addresses would have inconvenienced my
> > > > contributors/customers/suppliers/relatives/friends.
> > > >
> > > > However, after some work and about $20 in expense, all but about 50 to
> 100
> > > > spams a day are flushed away and I never see them.
> > > >
> > > > Of the ones I still get, the funniest are the ones supposedly from the
> > > > people who manage the email services for my domain. Since "I" am the
> only
> > > > one who manages my domain, I tend to be a bit suspicious!
> >
> >
> > > After the Swen virus hit, I was getting over a hundred a day. I finally
> got
> > > Mailwasher and bounced them all. The robots pick up continious bounces
> > > apparently...
> >
> > Not really. The way most of these sorts of viruses operate these days is
> > by turning the infected person's computer into a mail relay without
> > their knowledge. The term for this sort of thing is "owning" a machine.
> > They then scan the Outlook and Outlook Express data files as well as web
> > cache and mine out all email addresses. The infected machine's new
> > stealth mail relay mechanism is then used to send copies of the virus to
> > every mined address...and it uses a return address of any one of the
> > mined addresses. Any of the targeted addresses which actually result in
> > another infection are in turn going to do the same process. This is why
> > these viruses spread so rapidly.
> >
> >
> > Why should virus writers want to turn peoples' home and business
> > computers into stealth mail relays? Easy, they are paid to do so by
> > professional spam gangs who will then turn around and use all these new
> > mail relays to spew out their spam. Some 80% is relayed through "owned"
> > MS Windows PC's on home cable and dsl networks (some 10,000 "owned
> > machines)...and some 90% spamvertises Western sites hosted in China.
> >
> > It never ceases to amaze me how many people using Microsoft operating
> > systems either don't care or are just to damn ignorant to secure their
> > machines (with anti-virus software they keep current).
> >
> > That said, there's a lot ISP's and companies could be doing to stop or
> > majorly contain such quick and penetrating viral outbreaks. Blocking
> > this sort of stuff at the mail server or network border are not that
> > difficult to implement....and should be required of every ISP and it
> > should be free. I have such protection on all my clients' email servers,
> > and it has caught and blocked 100% of attempted virus relays before they
> > can make into my customers' mail boxes.
> >
> >
> > It's only so many sysadmins at large ISP's are too lazy and/or
> > incompetent, that consumers are left thinking Mailwasher and products
> > like it are necessary. They are only necessary to make up for their
> > provider's incompetence.
> >
> >
> > So what happens when you're using a product like Mailwasher and it tags
> > and rejects a virus-infected email? Not much, these sorts of emails have
> > forged return addresses 99.9% of the time...and will either go to
> > somebody who scratches their head wondering why they're being accused of
> > sending a virus...or to a bogus address. The same goes for spam. The
> > only way to tell the real source (well at least the last hop) of spam is
> > by looking at the IP which relayed it to your smtp server (either by
> > looking at your message headers or your mail server's logs).
> >
> >
> > With that IP address, you have enough info to root out who is
> > responsible for abuse from that net block and make complaints
> > accordingly. The user-level anti-spam software is largely worthless in
> > actually having an effect on stopping that spam from spamming you again
> > or rejecting to the right people. It is reasonably effective of keeping
> > the garbage out of your mail box...which I guess is as much as most
> > end-users care about. The fact remains, if the provider did its job at
> > the server level, you wouldn't need such programs. I know that's a big
> > "if", but there are plenty of IPS's (as well as email hosters) to choose
> > from who actually know a thing or two about blocking spam and viruses.
> >
> >
> > Of course, you could always get a Mac and never have to worry about
> > these sorts of viruses. ; )
> >
> > --Mike
>
> First of all, my computer is protected by a very good anti virus program. In
> fact, the virus was never an issue for me. What WAS an issue were the 100 or
> so emails, (infected or not infected) that were sitting on the Earthlink
> server just waiting for me to hit the download button so I could sit here
> for two hours waiting for the crap to get downloaded so I could delete it.
> The problem for me, as it was for many others, was the unacceptable download
> time taken to get these bogus emails down to where they could be deleted
> without opening them. I think we all know that the answer to this is for the
> ISP to have adequate programs installed on their servers to eliminate these
> problems, but the simple truth is that most do not.
> My antivirus program (Computer Associates) is completely up to date and will
> catch any virus' infected messages after downloading, but who the hell wants
> to sit on their ass for two hours and wait while all the mess is coming in
> at 56kbs; I sure don't! :-)
> After complaining along with a million other people to the ISP's to install
> software that catches all this crap, I, along with a million other people
> out here installed Mailwasher so that we can see what the hell was sitting
> on the server and get rid of the crap BEFORE downloading it.
> Bottom line is that until the ISP's start nailing this stuff on their
> servers, the general public is left to programs like Mailwasher to help them
> delete these messes from the server, or else get a Mac! I don't want a Mac!
> Mailwasher works just fine for me. In fact, the spam level is practically
> non existent at this point and Mailwasher isn't really necessary at
> all.....until next time that is!! :-)


You may want to log into your Earthlink webmail account and change a setting
or two.

I did a few weeks ago and found that the settings I had left in the past had
caught a couple of hundred infected mails that earthlink quarenteened on the
server. I would never have seen them if I had not by chance logged in to
check something else.
They just sit there for xx number of days and then are deleted.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article t>,
> on Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:32:13 GMT,
> Dudley Henriques attempted to say .....
> You may want to log into your Earthlink webmail account and change a
setting
> or two.
>
> I did a few weeks ago and found that the settings I had left in the past
had
> caught a couple of hundred infected mails that earthlink quarenteened on
the
> server. I would never have seen them if I had not by chance logged in to
> check something else.
> They just sit there for xx number of days and then are deleted.

I use a simple dial up for email. I'm usually on the computer working most
of the time during the day and evening. The server gets checked at least
once an hour for email, so it's clean all the time. Earthlink's Spamator
catches whatever it catches and that's what sits there and gets deleted over
time. I don't even bother with Spamator. Anything that would go in there
would only have been deleted by me manually anyway.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Tank Fixer]

In article et>,
on Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:25:25 GMT,
Dudley Henriques attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article t>,
> > on Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:32:13 GMT,
> > Dudley Henriques attempted to say .....
> > You may want to log into your Earthlink webmail account and change a
> setting
> > or two.
> >
> > I did a few weeks ago and found that the settings I had left in the past
> had
> > caught a couple of hundred infected mails that earthlink quarenteened on
> the
> > server. I would never have seen them if I had not by chance logged in to
> > check something else.
> > They just sit there for xx number of days and then are deleted.
>
> I use a simple dial up for email. I'm usually on the computer working most
> of the time during the day and evening. The server gets checked at least
> once an hour for email, so it's clean all the time. Earthlink's Spamator
> catches whatever it catches and that's what sits there and gets deleted over
> time. I don't even bother with Spamator. Anything that would go in there
> would only have been deleted by me manually anyway.

That's the ticket.
I also download mail from my AKO account and they are running an even
stronger setup.
I don't believe I see much spam from that account at all.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tom]

Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
> Sometimes I forget that this is a rec.aviation group and not for pros
> like AvSig on CompuServe used to be when it was sponsored by ASI and
> John G. ran it.
>
> Still there are some here who have been there and done that and care to
> share with each other and others.

Sharing means backing up your assertions with real-world facts
sometimes, Ron.


> > But there are also those who think that playing with their Goggle all
> day is a real world experience.

...and there are those who think a rudder could move so quickly that
telemetric equipment can't record that movement..

> So I'm going to self-moderate by the simple mechanism of putting anyone
> who asks for "cite" into the kill file.

Of course, then you'd never have to back up any of your ridiculous
bull**** like "JAA makes it a requirement that airlines who land in
Europe buy Airbus".

> I don't mung my email address or bother to reply to emails from those
> who do. My reasoning is simple, I believe in quality like Boeing and
> Macintosh.

And anyone who hints that other things might have equal or better
quality gets killfiled! Brilliant!

> I'll try to keep in mind that not all are professionals here.

Can't say I've seen you demonstrating much professionalism wit this
little hissy fit...

[[email protected]]

(Tom) wrote:

>Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
>> Sometimes I forget that this is a rec.aviation group and not for pros
>> like AvSig on CompuServe used to be when it was sponsored by ASI and
>> John G. ran it.
>>
>> Still there are some here who have been there and done that and care to
>> share with each other and others.
>
>Sharing means backing up your assertions with real-world facts
>sometimes, Ron.
>
>
>> > But there are also those who think that playing with their Goggle all
>> day is a real world experience.
>
>..and there are those who think a rudder could move so quickly that
>telemetric equipment can't record that movement..
>
>> So I'm going to self-moderate by the simple mechanism of putting anyone
>> who asks for "cite" into the kill file.
>
>Of course, then you'd never have to back up any of your ridiculous
>bull**** like "JAA makes it a requirement that airlines who land in
>Europe buy Airbus".
>
>> I don't mung my email address or bother to reply to emails from those
>> who do. My reasoning is simple, I believe in quality like Boeing and
>> Macintosh.
>
>And anyone who hints that other things might have equal or better
>quality gets killfiled! Brilliant!
>
>> I'll try to keep in mind that not all are professionals here.
>
>Can't say I've seen you demonstrating much professionalism wit this
>little hissy fit...

And, among many other errors here you seem to lack experience on
usenet by making that ridiculous statement about not munging your
email address...I said exactly that about 3 years ago and it took
about that long to ruin that address with spammers.

At last count I received 945 emails in a 12 hour period.

That effectively shut down my email function and I had to change
my address (one that I had had and liked for a long time).

Mark my words well sir, because it -will- happen to you.

I must agree with Tom, you certainly don't come across as a pro.
--

-Gord.