Fake Spam-fighters

All these people who want you to believe that they are
the enemies of spam are lying.

Maybe to themselves.

Want to kill as much spam as any of the fancy filters
described on this group, from SA to lists of procmail
recipes a yard long?

Just kill any mail from strangers (not from an address on your
passlist) that doesn't have YOUR address alone on the To: line.

With procmail, that's:

:0
* ! ^To: *you@youraddress\.whatever *$
/dev/null

Simple as that. If it doesn't come from a mailing list that you
have chosen to subscribe to and isn't from someone whom you have
chosen to give your address to and it doesn have your address
alone on the To: line, then it is part of an un-solicited bulk
mailing: Spam.

This is pathetically obvious, and if ANY alleged spam-fighting
program you run across doesn't have have pass listing and the
equivalent of the above recipe in it, then it is GARBAGE.

You will discover, if you really look into it, that a lot of
the alleged spam-fighting software out there is in fact written
by part or full-time spammers , who know more about the subject
than anyone else on the face of the planet and know what they can
beat and what they can't, and how to convince people that they
hate spam.

In order to insure that people feel dependent on them, they make
these filters as technically arcane as possible.

And when people complain about getting spam and losing good mail,
they just shrug and say "Those spammers are clever devils."

No. 99.99% of spammers are downright stupid and have almost no
technical know how at all, and if they weren 't filling your
mailboxes with shit they'd be cleaning the shit out of someone's
toilets.

It's the fake spamfighting software out there that makes what
they do possible.

Want to identify someone who is in fact pro-spam (and probably
a spammer if they are hanging out on a technical mail group),
regardless of what they claim, or a troll?

Just bring up the subject of Challenge-Response mail filters
and they will have a cow.

Because they can't beat them.

All of the professional technical staff at Earthlink like them
just fine and offer them to all of their clients.

But these bozos actually expect you to believe that they
know more than the pros at Earthlink.

(I told you spammer's weren't very bright, and some of the
ones you'll see on this group are the very top of that smelly
heap.)

They can beat any other kind of filter on the market, and
therefore you will see them praising their virtues and posting
links to the websites where they can be found.

But when Challenge-Response filters are mentioned, they FREAK.

Google it.

------------------------------------------------------------ -----
I don't read the posts of "Sam", (nor any of his numerous
sockpuppets), nor any responses to them. All of the
aforementioned posts have their Subject lines changed to
XXXXXXX before they reach my newsreader.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----

AC


--
alanconnor AT earthlink DOT net
Use your real return address or I'll never know you
even tried to mail me. http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
~

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.40) (was Re: Fake Spam-fighters

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6351-1119665210-0005
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Usenet Beavis writes:

>
> All these *SLAP*

Shaddup, Beavis. Nobody gave you any permission to speak. Now, I order you
to answer the following question, IF YOU DARE!

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.40)

This is a canonical list of questions that Beavis never answers. This FAQ is
posted on a semi-regular schedule, as circumstances warrant.

For more information on Beavis, see:

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

Although Beavis has been posting for a long time, he always remains silent
on the subjects enumerated below. His response, if any, usually consists of
replying to the parent post with a loud proclamation that his Usenet-reading
software runs a magical filter that automatically identifies anyone who's
making fun of him, and hides those offensive posts. For more information
see question #9 below.

============================================================ ================

1) If spammers avoid forging real E-mail addresses on spam, then where do
all these bounces everyone reports getting (for spam with their return
address was forged onto) come from?

2) If your Challenge-Response filter is so great, why do you still munge
when posting to Usenet?

3) Do you still believe that rsh is the best solution for remote access?
(http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6)

4) What is your evidence that everyone who disagrees with you, and thinks
that you're a moron, is a spammer?

5) How many different individuals do you believe really post to
comp.mail.misc? What is the evidence for your paranoid belief that everyone,
except you, who posts here is some unknown arch-nemesis of yours?

6) How many times, or how often, do you believe is necessary to announce
that you do not read someone's posts? What is your reason for making these
regularly-scheduled proclamations? Who do you believe is so interested in
keeping track of your Usenet-reading habits?

7) When was the last time you saw Bigfoot (http://tinyurl.com/23r3f)?

8) If your C-R system employs a spam filter so that it won't challenge spam,
then why does any of the mail that passes the filter, and is thusly presumed
not to be spam, need to be challenged?

9) You claim that the software you use to read Usenet magically identifies
any post that makes fun of you. In http://tinyurl.com/3swes you explain
that "What I get in my newsreader is a mock post with fake headers and no
body, except for the first parts of the Subject and From headers."

Since your headers indicate that you use slrn and, as far as anyone knows,
the stock slrn doesn't work that way, is this interesting patch to slrn
available for download anywhere?

10) You regularly post alleged logs of your procmail recipe autodeleting a
bunch of irrelevant mail that you've received. Why, and who exactly do you
believe is interested in your mail logs?

11) How exactly do you "enforce" an "order" to stay out of your mailbox,
supposedly (http://tinyurl.com/cs8jt)? Since you issue this "order" about
every week, or so, apparently nobody wants to follow it. What are you going
to do about it?

12) What's with your fascination with shit? (also http://tinyurl.com/cs8jt)?

13) You complain about some arch-nemesis of yours always posting forged
messages in your name. Can you come up with even a single URL, as an example
of what you're talking about?

14) You always complain about some mythical spammers that pretend to be
spamfighters (http://tinyurl.com/br4td). Who exactly are those people, and
can you post a copy of a spam that you supposedly received from them, that
proves that they're really spammers, and not spamfighters?


--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6351-1119665210-0005
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCvLw6x9p3GYHlUOIRArvRAJ9yY/tUy/H8bBXU7597LgPoi9fkJwCf ZQtF
hg9OZd1+5aZDhlK55wg8gEo=
=tBlG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6351-1119665210-0005--