MSGID: 2:221/1.58@fidonet e341d3fc
REPLY: 2:310/31 5e8d6b84
PID: OpenXP/5.0.43 (Win32)
CHRS: ASCII 1
TZUTC: -0400
Hello Richard!

** 08.04.20 - 08:07, Richard Menedetter wrote to August Abolins:

 AA>> I have toyed with the idea of replying to the ones that request
 AA>> payment,  and just send back a message..

 RM>And what should that do??

Maybe start to annoy THEM?


 RM>THEY know what they are doing.

I imagine that they might just have a stupid "clerk" who just might be  
clueless enough to click.


 RM>THEY can deal with it nicely.

Yes.. most of this stuff is automated. Mass deliveries of these emails and  
then when activated by the payload, more automation takes over.  I know..  
it's just robot waiting for robot.


 RM>This is much better, and funnier:
 RM>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QdPW8JrYzQ

I remember seeing that several years ago.  It was fun to see it again.   
Meanwhile another one of his that deals with "Unsubscribe".  It's worth  
looking up if YT doesn't already queue it up in the side panel.

Things like that do help to snuff out the fire of frustration that builds  
up in me.

One thing for sure.. the spammers have succeeded in spawning a market to  
document these "adventures" by people who then capitalize on the rewards  
that YT provides.  What's the pay-out from YT these days?  $1000 per  
million hits.  $100 per 100,000 hits?

The one called "More adventures in replying to scam.." by the same fellow  
seems even funnier.  It has a great finale!

I can relate when he says that "part of me just wants to annoy THEM as  
much as they annoy US."

This one by another fellow is pretty good too:


"OK - Let's Tell The Scammer I Already Have The Money"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eYdGGfObKk


 AA>> Many of these emails are so stupid. I despise those things. There
 AA>> should  be a away to block them right at the ISP/server side.  I would
 AA>> rather not  have them delivered to my mailbox in the first place.  Why
 AA>> can't ISP's  block certain ip addresses right on the spot?

 RM>On what basis should they do so??

Invasion of privacy for one thing.

How long would you tolerate someone knocking at your door to talk to you  
after you've told them to go away?  And then they would just continue.

How long would you tolerate someone pricking you with a pin at the back of  
your neck after you've told them to stop coming near you?

Many other examples, but privacy is the salient point.


 RM>But there is a really easy and extremely effective way!
 RM>Greylisting.

 RM>It simply refuses the first delivery of the mail...

Very nice.  Perhaps some  isps already implement that without my knowing.  
But sadly, the odd spam still slips through?


 RM>The other/additional method is to set up SpamAssassin.
 RM>It scores the mail and if the score is too high it does not accept it.
 RM>But it is much more complicated to set up and maintain.

That one sounds very familiar.  Good to know that there are solutions that  
ISPs can implement. But whatever is being done, is not good enough.


  ../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.43
 * Origin: /|ug's Point, Ont. CANADA (2:221/1.58)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 226/30 227/114
SEEN-BY: 229/101 426 452 1014 240/5832 249/206 317 400 280/464 5003
SEEN-BY: 288/100 292/854 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200 396/45 423/81
SEEN-BY: 423/120 712/848 770/1 2452/250
PATH: 221/1 280/464 229/426