Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Baiting Spamtraps

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
  • To: InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Baiting Spamtraps
  • Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:49:03 -0400

on Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:40:54PM -0400, David Minton wrote:
> Hmm, you and I have a different take on spamtraps. I am using Communigate
> Pro, and they have the following take on spamtraps:

Hm.

<snip>

No, we have the same definition of spamtraps - bogus addresses that get
nothing but spam. And I still quarantine any messages that get through
sendmail but have a spamtrap in the To: or Cc: headers, so I understand
the point and utility of having them. I just don't see the point of
signing up for /more spam/. There's no guarantee that the spamtrap will
get hit first, nor is there any guarantee that the message will be
addressed to multiple addresses or that one of them will be the spamtrap.
So unless you're doing content analysis (Bayes or hash-based) to compare
messages, it doesn't make any sense to have spamtraps - all it means is
that you get more spam.

> Based on this definition of a spamtrap, I would think it would be
> advantageous (except for the bandwidth used) to get my spamtrap
> addresses into the spammer databases.

Go for it. :) I'm just saying that after five years of archiving spam
sent to spamtraps, I finally said "enough" and started rejecting it.

--
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page