how "http://www.spamarrest.com/" works (was: Re: Proposal: new "plug-offtopic" email list [ linux ...])

[Mike Schwartz]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Mike Schwartz <schwartz at acm.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Technomage-hawke
> <technomage.hawke at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 14 February 2008 06:19, Shawn Badger wrote:
> > > Other than the emails about politics which could be considered spam at
> > > least by me, I can't remember the last time I saw spam on the plug mailing
> > > list. Maybe it is just me though.
> >
> > I wasn't specifically complaining about *this* list. There are a lot of other
> > lists that I have been seeing bounces from lately (and none of them I am
> > subscribed to). it seems my e-mail got harvested and someone has been using
> > it as a "return envelope" address.
> >
> > unfortunately, just about all listserv software bounces back to the given
> > return address.
> >
> > it seems that those folks that manage listserv's have never bothered with any
> > kind of spam administration (spamd and others). I have contacted several of
> > the admins on some of these lists and been told that they let the package
> > deal with spam (IOW, it bounces back to the "victim" <in this case ME> and
> > said victim has to deal with the mess.).
> >
> > now, politics that has relevance to linux or freedom of choice (in your use of
> > OS) is never off topic (IMHO). the healthcare debacle we just went through
> > wasn't specifically on topic, but it did provide a barometer of who was alive
> > on this list <evil grin>.
> >
> > anyway. thats my beef with listserv admins who don't pay attention or do their
> > jobs (and its one of the reasons I have been seeing 400 "backscatter spams" a
> > day for the last week!).
> >
> > TMH
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> interesting;
> I have read some stuff (a white paper, e.g.) about greylisting, it might
>   be useful for you.
> Also, I have a little story to relate.
> On Feb. 5, I happened to have occasion to send an e-mail to a guy
>      Raymond <chiplambert at spamarrest.com>
> [I had never e-mailed to before], who uses "http://www.spamarrest.com/"
> for his spam arresting.   NOTE, I am not hesitating to give out the guy's
> e-mail address here, even though it might wind up in an archive of this
> list, on a PLUG web server of some kind.
>    The way it worked, was, the robot detected that it did not know who
> I was, (bogus or on the level), so it sent me a polite  little "one-time"
> e-mail message, saying [in part]
> <<
> Due to the large amount of Spam that I am receiving, I've opted to use
> SpamArrest. Please take a moment to just verify that you are a real
> person and I'll get your email.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chip
>
> Please click the link below to complete the verification process.
> You have to do this only once.
>
> http://www.spamarrest.com/a2?AQNmZQxkAmcmL2u3LKW0rxOuL20ho3WaByWurJ1iozDj
>
>
>
> You are receiving this message in response to your email to Raymond, a
> Spam Arrest customer.
>
> Spam Arrest requests that senders verify themselves before their email
> is delivered.
>
> When you click the above link, you will be taken to a page with a
> graphic on it. Simply read the word in the graphic, type it into the
> form, and you're verified.
>
> You have to do this only once per Spam Arrest customer.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Below are the complete headers of the message that this email was
> generated in response to.
> [...snip...]
> >>
>
> I do not remember for sure whether there was a CAPTCHA involved,
> I think it just required me to click on that link with that very
> hard-to-guess
> (& presumably computationally difficult to reverse engineer)
> scramble code.
> ["AQNmZQxkAmcmL2u3LKW0rxOuL20ho3WaByWurJ1iozDj"]
> ...obviously, the "scramble code" part of that URL (after the "a2?")
> must be unique for each sender.
> (for each instance of challenging something).
>
> I do not know how much money "http://www.spamarrest.com/" charges
> (it is probably explained on their site)
> but it sounds like this guy Chip uses them,
> so it must be worth it, for him.
>
> Just a comment,
> from
> --
> Mike Schwartz
> Glendale AZ
> schwartz at acm.org

Ooops!
      Raymond <chiplambert at spamarrest.com>
was the return-address ["From: "?] on the message from the robot.
The actual address I had originally mailed to, was
     "Raymond Chip Lambert (IA)" <chip at integratedalliances.com>
I guess you can even write to him, to get his comments "if any",
about how things have been going with that [junk] arresting service.
-- 
Mike Schwartz
Glendale AZ
schwartz at acm.org