[SC-Help] Re: methods used...

[Jeff G.]

On 6/11/2005 10:27 AM Mike Easter scribbled:

> Jeff G. wrote:
> 
>>Anon_ scribbled:
>>
>>>"Jeff G."
> 
> 
>>>>>>Get spam.
>>>>>>Go to website in spam
>>>>>>     To see if it exists
>>>
>>>
>>>**
>>>Error number one - you have confirmed that YOUR e-mail address is a
>>>good, live, responsive one - which guarantees that you will get MORE
>>>spam from them and anyone whom they wish to sell, give, or furnish
>>>your address to.
> 
> 
> What Anon is talking about is that when you open a spam and click on its
> link, the link itself can be uniquely configured for you;  besides the
> fact that a webbug can be configured for your identity.  These unique
> identifiers characterize you as a spam opener and a spam believer, which
> makes you a spammee -- someone who needs to be on more lists.
> 
> 
I understood what anon was saying, Mike - don't forget I had supplied a
quote from another - those are his words that anon was responding to...




>>unless they decide to steer clear of you since you cause trouble,
>>which seems to be a possibility.
> 
> 
> There is nothing about being a spam opener and a spam believer that
> makes anyone steer clear of you because you are trouble, but rather
> makes you a spammee.

Same other guy was claiming otherwise.  I tend to agree with you that it
seems unlikely to happen, since if it in fact did, more would do it...


> 
> Keep in mind what is happening all the time and what isn't happening
> almost all the time.  What is happening all of the time is spamming, and
> lists growing longer or bigger.  What isn't happening at all is any kind
> of removal from any lists for any reasons, except rarely.
> 
> What is also happening occasionally is webbugging and special list
> creation for adding people to other lists.
> 
> 
>> But seems to be that ya gotta spend
>>a lot of time at it, which most commonfolk don't have.
> 
> 
> The business of getting branded or labeled as an anti- is not something
> that happens very much at all -- and not everyone agrees with
> facilitating listwashing.  The standard SC configuration is to munge and
> to separate the reporter from the report, just the opposite of notifying
> unmunged from the spammed address.
> 
> 
>>Which is why we are here...
> 
> 
> Spamcop's parsing and notifying is real fast.  Manual determination of
> better notifies and completion of a manual notify template is
> considerably slower.

Thought that was what I was implying at the end.
BTW the SC server seems to drag real bad at certain times - there are
probably times of the day where traffic is heaviest.
Got any useful stats on that?