that's australians for you.....











"Tor"  wrote in message 
news:46d98f5c$0$6277$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>            Pedophile Warning
>
> The Vincentian Fathers who run Stanislaus Collage are dangerous 
> pedophiles.
> In the last 4 decades they have raped thousands of children.
>
> Each night the Vincentian Fathers would take a small group of boys to 
> their bedrooms and chant them off to sleep in the name of prayer.
>
> Once the children were asleep the Vincentian Fathers raped them and made 
> them rape each other.
>
> Find out the full story at 
> http://tor.id.au/article.php?story=20070613095516192
>
>
>
>
>
> 0573886316

Well, not the content. I just checked my old demon mail account, which
currently has about 1400 bits of junk mail on it. What interested me was
that camboink@ was listed occasionally as recipient. As far as I know, that
address was never posted on the web or usenet, and Google agrees that it's
not currently searchable. That suggests that someone's got a leaky machine
and it got extracted from an old address book. The newer one at my current
domain hasn't received spam yet, so it's something really ancient that has
been dredged up somewhere. 

Ah well, back to your irregularly scheduled dating spam.

-- 
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time

Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote
>Well, not the content. I just checked my old demon mail account, which
>currently has about 1400 bits of junk mail on it. What interested me was
>that camboink@ was listed occasionally as recipient. As far as I know, that
>address was never posted on the web or usenet, and Google agrees that it's
>not currently searchable. That suggests that someone's got a leaky machine
>and it got extracted from an old address book. The newer one at my current
>domain hasn't received spam yet, so it's something really ancient that has
>been dredged up somewhere.
>
>Ah well, back to your irregularly scheduled dating spam.
>
I'm mostly getting random name addressed spam, easily dealt with via 
Mailwasher.
-- 
Gordon H

Gordon H  wrote:
> Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote

>>Well, not the content. I just checked my old demon mail account,
>>which currently has about 1400 bits of junk mail on it. What
>>interested me was that camboink@ was listed occasionally as
>>recipient. As far as I know, that address was never posted on the
>>web or usenet, and Google agrees that it's not currently
>>searchable. That suggests that someone's got a leaky machine and
>>it got extracted from an old address book. The newer one at my
>>current domain hasn't received spam yet, so it's something really
>>ancient that has been dredged up somewhere.
>>
>>Ah well, back to your irregularly scheduled dating spam.
>>
> I'm mostly getting random name addressed spam, easily dealt with
> via Mailwasher.

Sometimes I get bounces from an address that I didn't send an email to, 
saying there is no such address.  I assume someone has "borrowed" my 
email address to send out spam.  Is there anything that can be done 
about that?

Stu

In uk.singles,  (Stuart Bronstein) wrote in
::

>Gordon H  wrote:
>> Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote
>
>>>Well, not the content. I just checked my old demon mail account,
>>>which currently has about 1400 bits of junk mail on it. What
>>>interested me was that camboink@ was listed occasionally as
>>>recipient. As far as I know, that address was never posted on the
>>>web or usenet, and Google agrees that it's not currently
>>>searchable. That suggests that someone's got a leaky machine and
>>>it got extracted from an old address book. The newer one at my
>>>current domain hasn't received spam yet, so it's something really
>>>ancient that has been dredged up somewhere.
>>>
>>>Ah well, back to your irregularly scheduled dating spam.
>>>
>> I'm mostly getting random name addressed spam, easily dealt with
>> via Mailwasher.
>
>Sometimes I get bounces from an address that I didn't send an email to, 
>saying there is no such address.  I assume someone has "borrowed" my 
>email address to send out spam.  Is there anything that can be done 
>about that?

Not much, to be honest.  If you have your own domain, you can set an SPF
record, which tells at least the more clueful ISPs which mail (purporting
to be from you) can safely be ignored.
-- 
Marc

1984 was a warning, not a Manual - David Davis

In article ,
Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>Well, not the content. I just checked my old demon mail account, which
>currently has about 1400 bits of junk mail on it. What interested me was
>that camboink@ was listed occasionally as recipient. As far as I know, that
>address was never posted on the web or usenet, and Google agrees that it's
>not currently searchable. That suggests that someone's got a leaky machine
>and it got extracted from an old address book. The newer one at my current
>domain hasn't received spam yet, so it's something really ancient that has
>been dredged up somewhere. 

camboink@your_old_domain.d.c.u shows up in the bodies of four postings
in Goggle Gropes.  IIRC there was a virus last year which went off and
queried a number of Popular Search Engines to look for email addresses.

Alternatively someone could have had that address saved (possibly for
many years), and subsequently they acquired one of the viruses that
riffles through address books and email archives on their hard drive.

The third possibility is that it's a random address
assembled from words in your postings - I get a lot of spam to
 such as tunnels@ or viaducts@ or even
odder words that I know I used once -  even though neither of those
addresses has ever existed.  It all bounces of course, since I gave up
on the catchall address years ago.

Either way, once the addy is in the wild the spammers will have it
pretty soon.  Thanks to botnets there is little difference between the
virus-sending and spam-sending lists these days.

Nick
-- 
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 25th Aug 2007)

"The Internet, an ersatz counterfeit of real life"
            -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In message <fbkf1r$oti$1@leverton.org>, Nick Leverton wrote:

> In article ,
> Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>>Well, not the content. I just checked my old demon mail account, which
>>currently has about 1400 bits of junk mail on it. What interested me was
>>that camboink@ was listed occasionally as recipient. As far as I know,
>>that address was never posted on the web or usenet, and Google agrees that
>>it's not currently searchable. That suggests that someone's got a leaky
>>machine and it got extracted from an old address book. The newer one at my
>>current domain hasn't received spam yet, so it's something really ancient
>>that has been dredged up somewhere.
> 
> camboink@your_old_domain.d.c.u shows up in the bodies of four postings
> in Goggle Gropes.  IIRC there was a virus last year which went off and
> queried a number of Popular Search Engines to look for email addresses.
> 
I couldn't find it when I asked, I checked both web and news. That's sort of
where I expected it to have been published, in the good old days when it
all just worked. I know I get spam to ve@ and even e@, both of which have
appeared in my sig file. The noone$$ in the header gets a lot less than
anything else, presumably because most spam software doesn't really like
the dollar symbols.
-- 
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time

On Tuesday, in article
     
     noone$$@llondel.org "Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}" wrote:

>In message <fbkf1r$oti$1@leverton.org>, Nick Leverton wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>>>Well, not the content. I just checked my old demon mail account, which
>>>currently has about 1400 bits of junk mail on it. What interested me was
>>>that camboink@ was listed occasionally as recipient. As far as I know,
>>>that address was never posted on the web or usenet, and Google agrees that
>>>it's not currently searchable. That suggests that someone's got a leaky
>>>machine and it got extracted from an old address book. The newer one at my
>>>current domain hasn't received spam yet, so it's something really ancient
>>>that has been dredged up somewhere.
>> 
>> camboink@your_old_domain.d.c.u shows up in the bodies of four postings
>> in Goggle Gropes.  IIRC there was a virus last year which went off and
>> queried a number of Popular Search Engines to look for email addresses.
>> 
>I couldn't find it when I asked, I checked both web and news. That's sort of
>where I expected it to have been published, in the good old days when it
>all just worked. I know I get spam to ve@ and even e@, both of which have
>appeared in my sig file. The noone$$ in the header gets a lot less than
>anything else, presumably because most spam software doesn't really like
>the dollar symbols.

I regularly get over 100 junk emails an HOUR to various users at old demon
address, various connotations

        <msgid number>
        aaron  }
        abby   }   all with various combinations of numbers
        abe    }
        old cats names
        swear words (most common being 'fuck')
        various names with missing or extra characters on the end
                (e.g. 'pau' and 'pauld')
        Now get pipe character in front of various combinations of above

Largest group is the second group (80-90%), which in no way relates to any
used username EVER.

The biggest problem appears to be spam list harvesters, expanding their
lists by adding numbers or other changes, so they can make as one
spam claimed

        "60 billion valid email addresses"

Considering I believe current world (human) population is under 6 billion
it is an 'interesting' claim.

--
Paul (who the hell does this guy think he is?)
Post pen-pal/date/web-site adverts in uk.adverts.personals

In message , Paul
Carpenter wrote:

> 
> The biggest problem appears to be spam list harvesters, expanding their
> lists by adding numbers or other changes, so they can make as one
> spam claimed
> 
>         "60 billion valid email addresses"
> 
> Considering I believe current world (human) population is under 6 billion
> it is an 'interesting' claim.
> 
I do have over ten valid email addresses, even some at uks.org.uk, so I'm
doing my bit
-- 
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time

"Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
> Paul Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> as one spam claimed
>> 
>>         "60 billion valid email addresses"
>> 
>> Considering I believe current world (human) population is under 6
>> billion it is an 'interesting' claim.
>> 
> I do have over ten valid email addresses, even some at uks.org.uk,
> so I'm doing my bit

Damn!  I've only got five.  I'd better get to work.

Stu