[ale] (no subject) SPAM talk...

[ChangingLINKS.com]

On Saturday 17 April 2004 10:36, you wrote:
> >>>>> "ChangingLINKS" == ChangingLINKS com <ChangingLINKS.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>     ChangingLINKS> Can spammers figure out how to harvest the email
>     ChangingLINKS> from that? Sure.
> 
>     ChangingLINKS> Will they harvest it? I strongly doubt it. In
>     ChangingLINKS> short: Spammers are programmers, have access to
>     ChangingLINKS> programmers (or buy ready made spamming
>     ChangingLINKS> software). And writing such code would take *time*
>     ChangingLINKS> which increases cost. Aside from the virus/
> 
> It took me all of about 5 minutes (start ~1109, working ~1116) to get
> this which will work for one page; most of that time was remembering
> how to use HTML::TokeParser (and a quick trip to the facilities :).

Good. *not* to be a smartass, but please take the same amount of effort to 
write the script Chris Farris requested to obfuscate the email addresses.

> In under an hour I could have this spidering in parallel (in about
> four to five hours I could have something which would spread requests
> out to come from any number of endpoints to make it not look like
> spidering).  And all with just off the shelf components.  I probably
> could do the same in Ruby, again with pretty much off the shelf
> components, in about the same time (well, probably about 2 hours since
> I'm still working on my Ruby-fu).  Serious harvesters will have
> someone who could do the same in the same timeframes on retainer (not
> to mention probably already having much of the spidering
> infrastructure already in place).

However, you are focused on the ALE archives. Spammers are focused on the 
Internet. The difference is that there are millions of sites to be concerned 
with slogging. Moreover there are many different ways to obfuscate an email 
address.  For example, many people use user at NOSPAMdomain.com. 
How long would it take you to write a program to decipher all of the different 
methods? 1-1000 hours? 

1. During that time the savvy spammer will simply spend that time slogging 
email addresses and sending millions of emails There are PLENTY of email 
addresses out there. 
2. Further, the savvy spammer will understand that people who hate spam(and 
thus obfuscate) are less likely to BUY.
3.  He understands that all of that effort would be wasted collecting 
sub-standard email addresses. 
4. Mr. Savvy would rather avoid the flames that come from emailing spam 
haters. 
5. The spammer would probably know that slogging fresh email addresses is 
likely to result in contacting someone NEW to the internet rather than the 
battle hardened over-marketed spam hater.
6. The industry sells email address CDs and software that goes "with the 
grain" not against it. If you hate spam - spammers do NOT want to email you.


Why break into and hotwire an 85 Ford 150, when there is a 2003 Nissian Titan 
with the keys on the seat and unlocked doors sitting right next to it? 
All I'm saying is we should lock the doors.
/hoping this simile doesn't become the subject of the thread
-- 
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew Brown
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com