OT: Question about Newsreader email spam config

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frank S
  • Start date Start date
F

Frank S

After all these years of using my correct email address in newsgroups,
because I prefer folks being able to easily send e-mail to me, this last
swen crap is the straw that broke the camels back. So... unfortunately, I
too have finally been forced to configure an inaccurate e-mail reply
address. Anyway...

Regarding the configuration of a bogus e-mail address, it occurs to me that
if you simply place the invalid string into your userID portion (i.e.
(e-mail address removed)) that you are going to cause your own domain
mail server to be flooded with "no such userID" return messages. Whereas,
if you apply the filter to the domain section (i.e.
(e-mail address removed)), you will force the senders own mail server to
do all the work (no such domain!).

Right?

-Frank
 
Regarding the configuration of a bogus e-mail address, it occurs to me
that if you simply place the invalid string into your userID portion
(i.e. (e-mail address removed)) that you are going to cause your
own domain mail server to be flooded with "no such userID" return
messages. Whereas, if you apply the filter to the domain section
(i.e. (e-mail address removed)), you will force the senders own
mail server to do all the work (no such domain!).

Right?
Click to expand...

That used to be correct. Now, if you keep the .com (or .net) on your
address, I think Verisign will get all the errors. ;-)

I put .invalid at the end of my munged domain.
 
Frank S pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
After all these years of using my correct email address in newsgroups,
because I prefer folks being able to easily send e-mail to me, this last
swen crap is the straw that broke the camels back. So... unfortunately, I
too have finally been forced to configure an inaccurate e-mail reply
address. Anyway...

Regarding the configuration of a bogus e-mail address, it occurs to me that
if you simply place the invalid string into your userID portion (i.e.
(e-mail address removed)) that you are going to cause your own domain
mail server to be flooded with "no such userID" return messages. Whereas,
if you apply the filter to the domain section (i.e.
(e-mail address removed)), you will force the senders own mail server to
do all the work (no such domain!).

Right?
Click to expand...

Pretty much so. However, as I understand it, if you change the .com to
..invalid then mail servers won't even *send* mail. Your way a mail server
will attempt to send to spamfiltermynetwk.com

I read that somewhere <g>.
 
That used to be correct. Now, if you keep the .com (or .net) on your
address, I think Verisign will get all the errors. ;-)

I put .invalid at the end of my munged domain.
Click to expand...

Depends on the news server. News.CIS.DFN.DE won't allow posting if you
put in a phony domain. Where the bounced mail goes is an interesting
question though.....
 
After all these years of using my correct email address in newsgroups,
because I prefer folks being able to easily send e-mail to me, this last
swen crap is the straw that broke the camels back. So... unfortunately, I
too have finally been forced to configure an inaccurate e-mail reply
address. Anyway...
Click to expand...

It's probably too late. I am getting all my Swen emails at an address
that I used to give only to close personal acquaintance. It was used
in Usenet only a couple of times, by mistake, in postings to NANAS
several months ago.

So I am not convinced that the Swen virus got my address from Usenet.
Instead, the virus did a search of the files on somebody's infected
computer:

http://www.f-prot.com/virusinfo/descriptions/swena.html

"It gathers email addresses from .eml, .wab, .dbx, .mbx and .asp
files. The worm scans for these files."
Regarding the configuration of a bogus e-mail address, it occurs to me that
if you simply place the invalid string into your userID portion (i.e.
(e-mail address removed)) that you are going to cause your own domain
mail server to be flooded with "no such userID" return messages. Whereas,
if you apply the filter to the domain section (i.e.
(e-mail address removed)), you will force the senders own mail server to
do all the work (no such domain!).
Click to expand...

I agree with you, that's the advice I was given a long time ago.
 
It's probably too late.

I agree it's too late for swen. But sooner or later swen will subside.
This is for the next time!

-Frank
 
Pretty much so. However, as I understand it, if you
change the .com to .invalid then mail servers won't
even *send* mail. Your way a mail server will
attempt to send to spamfiltermynetwk.com

I read that somewhere <g>.
Click to expand...

Actually, with a bogus domain (even .com), all that can happen is the mail
server will fail to get name resolution and therefore not even be able to
attempt a send. I suppose you could consider attempting to get name
resolution the first part of an attempt to send.

This reminds me of something I tell my folks at work all the time. That
is.... although it's important to have everyone on the same page, it should
not be the one intentionally left blank! :)

-Frank
 
Frank S pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
Actually, with a bogus domain (even .com), all that can happen is the mail
server will fail to get name resolution and therefore not even be able to
attempt a send. I suppose you could consider attempting to get name
resolution the first part of an attempt to send.
Click to expand...

True, if it is a bogus domain. In some other groups, I was pointing out to
people that their choices of invalid.net, invalid.com, empty.net,
nospam.com etc were not good choices, as they are all legitimate domains.
Once harvested, the webmaster probably gets all the spam at the catch-all
address.

This reminds me of something I tell my folks at work all the time. That
is.... although it's important to have everyone on the same page, it should
not be the one intentionally left blank! :)
Click to expand...

Heh, I like that.
 
True, if it is a bogus domain. In some other groups, I was
pointing out to people that their choices of invalid.net,
invalid.com, empty.net, nospam.com etc were not good
choices, as they are all legitimate domains.
Click to expand...

Ahh... gotcha!

-Frank
 
On that special day, Beauregard T. Shagnasty,
([email protected]) said...
In some other groups, I was pointing out to
people that their choices of invalid.net, invalid.com, empty.net,
nospam.com etc were not good choices, as they are all legitimate domains.
Once harvested, the webmaster probably gets all the spam at the catch-all
address.
Click to expand...

Count in invalid.de. The owner is already furious, and scolds people
abusing "his" domain. He wanted people to learn about proper address
handling by providing some informative pages on the homepage, instead
his domain gets spammed.


Gabriele Neukam

(e-mail address removed)
 
Hi,
Actually, with a bogus domain (even .com), all that can happen is the mail
server will fail to get name resolution and therefore not even be able to
attempt a send. I suppose you could consider attempting to get name
resolution the first part of an attempt to send.
Click to expand...

What about "[email protected]", then?

Chris
 
Back
Top