<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://ideas.4brad.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Brad Ideas - Antivirus bounces a curse of their own - Comments</title>
 <link>http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000023.html</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Antivirus bounces a curse of their own&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000023.html#comment-35</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Why does the anti-virus software feel the need to send an error message to the fake sender?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Scroll down the message. I am sure that you will find a link to buy the anti-virus software which detected the virus. It&#039;s the perfect place for such an ad. You can&#039;t accuse the program of spamming and it is scary for the less computer literate to get such a message. Many believe that their computer must be infected, increasing the likelihood of a quick sale.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am currently under bombardment from an analogous lack of insight by various POP servers. Some &amp;amp;&amp;amp;^%$* spammer decided to insert my address in the From line of his broadcast this weekend. I am already up to a few thousand bounced messages for full mailboxes/unknown users/unknown servers etc. Individual messages I can understand, although a method of authenticating senders would solve that problem, too, but when I get a message indicating that 25 of the 250 addresses in the To list are faulty, I have to think the braindead server could have recognized the SPAM for what it was and binned it without notifying me.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:15:01 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Peter Jennings</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 35 at http://ideas.4brad.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000023.html#comment-34</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I like your web page on C/R web filters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve been trying to find a way to switch to C/R, however, I have a number of unique issues that makes it difficult.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First off, I use multiple domains, some of which I just have all mail addressed to that domain go to a single mailbox. Sometimes I have all mail from multiple domains go to a single mailbox. I&#039;m regretting this now, but it was useful at the time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, I use IMAP for all of my mail, so I can&#039;t use a client-side solution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lastly, my IMAP mail is auto-filtered by ProcMail in combination with Spam Assassin. What I want is something that I can easily call from within procmail for multiple specific rules (i.e. addresses to &lt;a href=&quot;mailto:y@domain.com&quot;&gt;y@domain.com&lt;/a&gt;, but not caught in the above rules, send to white; addresses to *@domain.com but not caught in the above rules, send to white).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve not yet found anything that quite works for me for all of this. Looking around I&#039;ve seen services that charge lots of bucks, server appliances, or services that only work with POP, or services where you must use their client software or web interface.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If you know of a good existing solution, let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;-- Christopher Allen&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:09:39 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Christopher Allen</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 34 at http://ideas.4brad.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Antivirus bounces a curse of their own</title>
 <link>http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000023.html</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I often talk about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Challenge Response spam filters&lt;/a&gt; because I wrote the first one.  One complaint people make is that the filters will challenge even forged mail, causing a challenge to be sent to the forgery victim.   While this is not a DOS attack window as some people believe (since you can as easily DOS the target directly as get others to do it for you) it does need more consideration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, there are some autoresponders who have no excuse in this, and it is them I am railing on today.  With the latest worm program, I am getting &quot;bounces&quot; back from anti-viral mail filters which tell me, &quot;The mail you sent contains a virus and was not delivered.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of course I didn&#039;t send the mail, my address was forged.  What bothers me is that the anti-virus program clearly knows there is a virus, and presumably then should know it is the sort of virus which puts in a fake address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So why it feels the need to send an error to the address it knows is fake, I don&#039;t know.  The bounces I can tolerate, the bouncing software has no way to know it was a virus, but the anti-virus software has no excuse.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Addon:  I&#039;m going to promote a note from the comments because naive me didn&#039;t think of it.  The virus companies may be happy to send this &quot;your virus was bounced&quot; mail to the wrong address because it&#039;s an ad for their anti-virus service.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000023.html#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/cat_spam.html">Spam</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:49:46 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>brad</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">24 at http://ideas.4brad.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
