[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Bounces and spammers (was: text vs html posts on this list...)

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 02:50, T. Ribbrock wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 07:21:02PM -0700, Mike Noble wrote:
> > Spammers also use html mail and if you send a reply then all
> > you have done is let them know they have found a real person
> > and you will start getting a bunch more spam.
> [...]
> You know, I'm wondering whether that is still that much of a problem
> these days. Automated bounces will go to the "From" address - and I
> haven't seen spam with a valid-looking "From" in *ages*, i.e. the great
> majority of spammers will never get to see the bounce, anyway...

    I think he's talking about the web-bugs.  Spammers put in _any_
picture then the server who serves it knows that address is active.  All
they have to do is request
http://someserver.spam/address-is:george myaddress com  and it'll show
up in the logs, even though the page doesn't exist. Sure, in the error
log, but they can still capture it, knowing that the spam, regardless of
antispam measures, has gotten through AND been read.

    Yeah, I'm adverse to HTML emails both because of that and that most
people don't do it well.  The text is too small, and when someone wants
to make a point, it's WAY too big.  (And flashing isn't helpful or
welcomed anywhere.)  


Brian FahrlÃnder                  Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN                                 http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ 5119262
AIM: WheelDweller

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]