[Spambayes] Latest spammer trick stymied

[Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions]

3/31/2003 3:46:36 PM, Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> wrote:

>
>    >> We definitely should NOT crawl the site, just in case it really is an
>    >> innocent url.  The load can crush a site, particularly if it's
>    >> hosted.
>
>    Richard> Nah. You need to throw thousands of requests at a half-decent
>    Richard> web server before it gives up the ghost. And if they're sending
>    Richard> out 10 million mail pieces, they should expect their http
>    Richard> server to take some load. These are definitely NOT innocent
>    Richard> emails. They come from bogus senders, have minimal headers
>    Richard> (deliberately), and contain *nothing* but a url. Which points,
>    Richard> via redirect naturally, to an incest porn or get-a-huge-penis
>    Richard> site, etc.
>
>You can't make that judgement beforehand.  If the site you are poking is a
>valid site and the email received was not spam, none of what you said holds.
>If I remember correctly, you said this was only to be performed in
>circumstances where certain criteria were met, none of which included a
>conclusion the mail was spam.

That's right.  We really should try to solve this problem with tokenization.

>
>Skip
>
>


c'est moi - TimS
http://www.fourstonesExpressions.com
http://wecanstopspam.org

There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
  those who understand binary,
  and those who don't.