From: Arnt Gulbrandsen (arnt_at_gulbrandsen.priv.no)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 08:04:14 PDT
Richard S. Holmes writes: > rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes) writes: > >> I think only one uncontrolled mention in the Google database is a >> pretty good indicator that leakage of a new address would be slow. > > Unless of course there are viruses out there that harvest people's > address books and send them on to spammers. > > Which I suppose there probably are. There have been one or two. Trojans, not spams, but the effect is the same: Some people figured out where their address books were being sent (very easily, too), complained to the relevant ISP, and the ISP cut the trojan's "vendor" off the net. > I can't think of any reason why someone wouldn't have done that by now. >From a spammer's viewpoint, anything that makes the spammer easily traceable must be very, very efficient in order to compensate for the additional risk. --Arnt -- Rule Date: 2003-04-22 15:05:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST