my spamgourmet address is under attack

General discussion re sg.

my spamgourmet address is under attack

Postby benalt613 » Thu May 15, 2008 12:47 pm

A spammer has my address and has automated spamming it by prefixing it with random letters sending me tons of spam. It has taken me ages to zero out all the created addresses and hide them.

I think it would be good to have a way of hiding addresses etc. enmass by do the mods in a table form the same way that the disposable addresses are displayed.

Also, I'd like to see the opposite of a watch word idea - where you can specify a word that should NOT be in an address - i.e. you specify a word from the disposable address the spammer is using to create addresses. This way the way you create your disposables is not controlled or impacted. This is much better than the "watchword" idea.
benalt613
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:34 pm

Postby Paranoid2000 » Thu May 22, 2008 1:55 am

The prefix option is a simple way to block the "random characters address" spam and you can change it (without affecting previous aliases) if the spammer starts to evolve a degree of intelligence...

As for mass hiding, I'd agree that having checkboxes by each alias for basic options (set to zero, add 10, hide) allowing multiple modification would be easier - though having a webpage with a few hundred checkboxes may choke some browsers.
Paranoid2000
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:48 am

Postby sg-since03 » Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:28 am

Also, I'd like to see the opposite of a watch word idea - where you can specify a word that should NOT be in an address - i.e. you specify a word from the disposable address the spammer is using to create addresses. This way the way you create your disposables is not controlled or impacted. This is much better than the "watchword" idea.

This has been discussed and rejected as impractical or ineffective. See the thread "Addresses created in my account not by me!" http://bbs.spamgourmet.com/viewtopic.php?p=5190

There's a foolproof solution. It's inconvenient, but ot works. See this post: http://bbs.spamgourmet.com/viewtopic.ph ... ight=#5321

A corollary issue, which SysKoll resolved, is discussed here: http://bbs.spamgourmet.com/viewtopic.php?t=1081 ("Suggestion: "Don't log for hidden" OR rejected [@]").
sg-since03
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:11 am


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron