rejecting spamgourmet email domains

[info]

I understand that some websites don't allow signups using spamgourmet email addresses -- the webmasters list the spamgourmet domains (that they know about) as ones that can't be used for sign-ups.

I thought I'd start this thread to try and invite the webmasters to discuss why.

I don't believe you insist on having an email address that you can spam relentlessly and sell to the slimy underworld (at least, not most of you). Surely you see spamgourmet addresses as a threat of some sort that legitimately should be protected against.

So if you have any insight as to what may be motivating this, please post here.

[crazycomputers]

I think it's rather simple. Most websites that I know of don't like people signing up for more than one account -- especially on forums. You don't even have to come up with a new sg word! Just change the number, which isn't used after the address is created.

Think about it... someone gets banned from a forum for being an idiot, so he wants another account to flame everyone with. sg makes it that much easier to get a new address. Sure you can get a yahoo or hotmail address, but in most cases those are blocked too. Plus you need to sign up for other free addresses, where with sg you sign up once and get all the addresses you'll ever need.

Maybe the fact that sg doesn't bounce the mail after the address has expired has something to do with it too. If the address is going to shut off, I don't want to waste my bandwidth sending messages to an account that eats them without knowing that they're being eaten. sg creates the problem of ghost accounts -- ones that were used once, will never be used again, but cannot be detected by the webmaster since nothing ever bounces ("last login" checks aside).

[Tokoi]

I believe that spammers have actually requested that addresses with "spam" in them not be spammed, because they themselves sometimes use them as personal addresses. The people who maintain these sites perhaps, then, do not have access to the mailing list program itself, so they use a workaround; they just don't allow "spam" at all.

[SysKoll]

If that was true, why does sg receive so much spam from collected addresses?

[beachguy]

If you subscribe to anything legit, then use a legit email address. Otherwise, you are no different than those people you are trying to trap.

[SysKoll]

If you subscribe to anything legit, then use a legit email address. Otherwise, you are no different than those people you are trying to trap.

Nice troll, beachguy.

Seriously, an sg address is perfectly legit. Even banks get their customers' data stolen these days, so why would I give my ISP's mailbox address to a bloke who will either sell it for $0.20 or put it on a Windows machine where 150 different spambots will harvest it?

[Guest]

[quote="crazycomputers"] . . . websites . . . don't like people signing up for more than one account -- especially on forums.[/quote]

- Because it's more difficult to exploit visitors - they might derive a cost-free benefit. Consider spamgourmet! True altruism.

[quote="crazycomputers"]You don't even . . . (need) a new sg word! Just change the number . . . [/quote]

Big deal! Watching for SG domains? Match account names. But why? People should have the right to be anonymous, and to monitor misuse of their emails. With different accounts, I see spamming from different threads.

I think forum operators should always provide anonymous posting and message forwarding, so that visitors and emails are shielded. Think of it as protecting the modesty of one's daughters on line.

[quote="crazycomputers"] . . . someone gets banned . . . for being an idiot, so he wants another account to flame everyone . . .[/quote]

There's that pesky free speech annoying us again!

[quote="crazycomputers"]I don't want to waste my bandwidth sending messages to an account that eats them without [i]knowing[/i] that they're being eaten.[/quote]

AAH-HAAH! The secret is out! Why send unsolicited messages? Would they be - spam?

[quote="crazycomputers"]sg creates the problem of ghost accounts . . . ("last login" checks aside).[/quote]

Really! How does SG deal with it? Why NOT let unused accounts expire?

I bet accounts expire in any forum when their commercial value is gone. I've seen them - shills for corporations masquerading as 'public forums'.

Notice how morality is a matter of class perspective. Spammers or commercial sites claim the RIGHT to know things about us, just for using their sites. Commercialization of the internet should never have been allowed.

In case crazycomputers is a site operator, I'll state for the record: I'm sure HE does not engage in any practice to which I may have alluded. Maybe now I won't get banned

Of course, if any reader does take personal offense, I will have to paraphrase the song

[quote="Carly Simon"]You're so vain - you prob'ly think this flame is about you . . .[/quote]

[I hope you turn the BBCode back on - this won't be half as funny without it]

[crazycomputers]

To the Guest who replied to me:

I do operate several forums, but I do not check for sg addresses. I only require email confirmation before the account is active. If enough people abuse sg addresses for spamming or flaming, I will consider blocking them. But at this point, no one has even registered with an sg address. Believe me, it'll take a lot of abuse from sg addresses before I'll start blocking all sg domains.

Please keep in mind that I was stating why I think other webmasters block sg addresses. Since I don't block them, it couldn't apply to me anyway.

[Guest]

I do operate several forums, but I do not check for sg addresses. [. . . . .] Since I don't block them, it couldn't apply to me anyway.

Glad to hear it!

I still consider it significant that in describing the motivations of a hypothetical web site owner

I don't want to waste my bandwidth sending messages to an account that eats them without knowing that they're being eaten.

It would seem to me that any site owners with this concern have spamming intentions.

Best of luck and much success with your work, crazycomputers.

Now that the BBCode is back on, I can close with my joke: . . . I [wanted] . . . to paraphrase the song which

You're so vain - you prob'ly think this flame is about you . . .

[Paranoid2000]

给您添...

Pending deletion by the forum admins, here's some extra links for search engines to savour...

* Edit from Syskoll

Paranoid2000,

I understand your concern but I don't think this is the right way to fight link spamming. If you insert links to a spammer's site, even with an alt text, search engine will increase theis counts of link to that site, and probably increase the site ranking. Exactly what the spammer wants.

And as for inserting words that are banned by the Communist China regime, it will only result in getting our pages unavailable from China. It will not stop the spammers, who are smart enough to use proxies.
--SysKoll

* Links deleted
* References to deeds and acts of wars committed by the Communist China regime deleted
*End Edit

[Guest]

I'm a little confused about what happened to Paranoid 2000.

What were the odd symbols in the 'anonymous' quote?

What is 'link spamming'?

What sort of links were deleted from Paranoid's post?

[SysKoll]

A not-very-bright Chinese spammer is pestering our forum with spam posts. Hoping to get him in hot water, Paranoid2000 put links to one of the spammer's web site with text related to carnages that the Communist regime is not so proud of. That's what I deleted, with reasons explained in the edit.

As for link spamming, it's the practice of adding posts containing tons of links to a sitein a random forum in the hope of boosting that site's ranking in search engines. Doesn't work anymore since Google changed its algorithm, but this spammer is apparently a tad slow.

[Paranoid2000]

And as for inserting words that are banned by the Communist China regime, it will only result in getting our pages unavailable from China.

I didn't consider that possibility. My apologies.

[oreally]

www.libertyorchards.com

got a xmas present of candy from this company, and liked it so much I wanted to order some more.

but it wasnt worth the hassle of filling out all the order info. only to find out they reject you from ordering...and I tried all the sg domains I know of (I normally use neverbox.com)

in the end just sent them a nastygram saying why they lost my $$$. only reason to reject sg addresses is they want to spam, or they're too stupid to be running an ecommerce site.

[Amazahzing]

setup your own domain to use with SG. They'll not know. I do this now. I might even be donating some domains to SG to salt them to death.