Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #97282 > unrolled thread

Calendar spam!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Calendar spam! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2016-11-25 16:52 -0600
    Re: Calendar spam! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-11-25 15:12 -0800
      Re: Calendar spam! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-25 18:21 -0500
        Re: Calendar spam! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-11-25 15:46 -0800
        Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-25 18:55 -0500
    Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-25 18:29 -0500
      Re: Calendar spam! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-11-25 15:47 -0800
      Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-25 16:05 -0800
        Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-25 19:09 -0500
          Re: Calendar spam! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-11-25 16:13 -0800
            Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-25 19:15 -0500
      Re: Calendar spam! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-26 00:57 +0000
        Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-25 17:25 -0800
        Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-25 20:31 -0500
        Re: Calendar spam! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-11-25 17:36 -0800
    Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-25 15:59 -0800
    Re: Calendar spam! Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 19:20 -0500
      Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-25 16:25 -0800
        Re: Calendar spam! Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 19:34 -0500
      Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-25 19:28 -0500
        Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-25 16:29 -0800
          Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-25 19:31 -0500
    Re: Calendar spam! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-26 00:53 +0000
      Re: Calendar spam! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2016-11-26 14:01 -0600
        Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-26 15:14 -0500
        Re: Calendar spam! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-26 20:14 +0000
        Re: Calendar spam! Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:24 -0500
        Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-27 00:48 +0000
          Re: Calendar spam! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2016-11-28 22:52 -0600
    Re: Calendar spam! Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-26 16:52 +0000
      Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-26 17:01 +0000
        Re: Calendar spam! dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-11-28 09:17 +1300
          Re: Calendar spam! Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-28 02:48 +0000
            Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-28 04:00 +0000
            SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2016-11-28 17:15 -0600
              Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-29 14:21 +0000
                Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 12:51 -0500
                  Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
                    Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:12 -0500
                  Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-30 17:02 +0000
                    Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 13:27 -0500
                      Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!) Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-01 14:40 +0000
      Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-26 12:06 -0500
      Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-26 16:45 -0800
        Re: Calendar spam! Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-27 16:27 +0000
          Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-27 16:53 +0000
          Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-27 13:00 -0800
            Re: Calendar spam! Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-28 02:32 +0000
              Re: Calendar spam! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-27 21:41 -0500
              Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-28 03:39 +0000
              Re: Calendar spam! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-28 06:29 +0000
              Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-28 02:00 -0800
                Re: Calendar spam! Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-28 19:02 +0000
                  Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-28 12:36 -0800
                    Re: Calendar spam! Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-29 14:44 +0000
                      Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-29 08:50 -0800
                        Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-29 18:26 +0000
                      Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-29 18:23 +0000
                  Re: Calendar spam! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-28 20:37 +0000
                  Re: Calendar spam! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-29 01:38 +0000
              Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-28 13:01 -0800
              Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-28 16:54 -0500
                Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-29 17:20 -0500
                  Re: Calendar spam! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-11-29 14:22 -0800
    Re: Calendar spam! MeV <michael.vilain@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 11:32 -0800
      Re: Calendar spam! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-26 14:41 -0500
    Re: Calendar spam! Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-11-26 19:59 -0800
      Re: Calendar spam! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2016-11-28 22:53 -0600

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#97465 — Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!)

On 2016-11-30 17:02:15 +0000, Doc O'Leary  
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> said:

> Well, you *do* know they make computers to handle that sort of thing, 
> right?  :-)

Sure, but I am going to claim a no-open-ports policy wins over 
reflexive automation  :)

> Closest I ever see to a dictionary attack are a couple lame tries at 
> sales@ or info@
> addresses.

Agreed.  I have used catch-all addresses on my domains, and never 
noticed any shotgun attempts.

A.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97478 — Re: SSH to another port (was Re: Calendar spam!)

For your reference, records indicate that 
Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sure, but I am going to claim a no-open-ports policy wins over 
> reflexive automation  :)

I’d agree that you shouldn’t run any service you’re not using.  I’m 
not even against things like port knocking to selectively offer 
services.  But if you *do* have a service running, using a 
non-standard port doesn’t seem to offer enough extra security to 
outweigh the value of gathering evidence on an attacker.  I expect 
the service *itself* to be secure, regardless of the port it’s 
running on.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97325

On 2016-11-26 11:52, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Today I got my first and second Calendar.app spam on my Mac,
>
> You don’t do a very good job in explaining what this is.  Alan suggested
> it might just be Mail pulling events out of a regular (unfiltered?)
> spam.  If that’s the case, Mail already has a preference to stop that.
> If it’s something else, you really need to describe the avenue used by
> the spammer to access your calendars.

Since the feature to have a meeting invite pop up in the calendar is 
both nice and handy to the recipient, this new spam vector is annoying 
people.  From one's iPhone where this also pops up, the proposed remedy 
doesn't apply that I can see.  If there is such then it isn't obvious 
and would be a PITA while out and about.

>> Also, WTF is the seller thinking?  This is only going to really piss off
>> every person who gets this; there will be zero sales from this.  So
>> either the would-be seller is an idiot or the goal must be something
>> else- confirming working iCloud accounts or e-mail addresses, perhaps,
>> since they get a notification when the victim declines the invite?
>> Phishing for something else than sales?
>
> Spam stopped being a first-order issue a long time ago.  It has almost
> nothing to do with actual sales and everything to do with the spammer
> convincing someone that the *potential* for new sales outweighs the
> costs.  If it does, the spammer gets repeat business from that same
> client.  If it doesn’t, there’s always another sucker to move on to,
> because the constant flow of spam convinces some people that spam
> *must* work.

It's actually just annoying.  And because Apple's available actions for 
the alert do not include "ignore" or "delete" the spammer at a minimum 
receives confirmation of a reachable e-mail address which, while not a 
complete disaster just adds mass to the spam-e-mail lists circulating 
about (and for sale).

> I have no idea what the true nature is of the problem you’re seeing.
> I have no idea what you’re doing that allows spammers to contact you
> in any fashion.  You have yet to make the case that Apple is at fault.

Not a fault per se, but something Apple could improve by adding an 
option to ignore the event thereby preventing feedback of a valid e-mail 
address to the sender.  An option to throw the sender into a filter 
would be a bonus.

> I say that as a person who has *provably* been spammed via Apple:

Yeah, your favourite lament.  Nothing to see here, move along.


-- 
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
   -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97333

On 2016-11-26 8:52 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Today I got my first and second Calendar.app spam on my Mac,
>
> You don’t do a very good job in explaining what this is.  Alan suggested
> it might just be Mail pulling events out of a regular (unfiltered?)
> spam.  If that’s the case, Mail already has a preference to stop that.
> If it’s something else, you really need to describe the avenue used by
> the spammer to access your calendars.
>
>> Also, WTF is the seller thinking?  This is only going to really piss off
>> every person who gets this; there will be zero sales from this.  So
>> either the would-be seller is an idiot or the goal must be something
>> else- confirming working iCloud accounts or e-mail addresses, perhaps,
>> since they get a notification when the victim declines the invite?
>> Phishing for something else than sales?
>
> Spam stopped being a first-order issue a long time ago.  It has almost
> nothing to do with actual sales and everything to do with the spammer
> convincing someone that the *potential* for new sales outweighs the
> costs.  If it does, the spammer gets repeat business from that same
> client.  If it doesn’t, there’s always another sucker to move on to,
> because the constant flow of spam convinces some people that spam
> *must* work.
>
> I have no idea what the true nature is of the problem you’re seeing.
> I have no idea what you’re doing that allows spammers to contact you
> in any fashion.  You have yet to make the case that Apple is at fault.
> I say that as a person who has *provably* been spammed via Apple:
>
> https://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/122/?content=apple-sells-me-out
>

Sorry, but I don't see any PROOF there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97347

For your reference, records indicate that 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> Sorry, but I don't see any PROOF there.

Then you don’t understand how disposable email addresses work.  If 
I give you a unique way to contact me and it ends up in the hands 
of spammers, the onus is on you to explain how that legitimately 
happened.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97349

On 2016-11-27, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I don't see any PROOF there.
>
> Then you don’t understand how disposable email addresses work. If 
> I give you a unique way to contact me and it ends up in the hands 
> of spammers, the onus is on you to explain how that legitimately 
> happened.

It can be explained in many ways that don't involve Apple at all.

And the onus is on *you* to prove your assertion that *Apple* somehow
did something that caused you to be spammed.

The fact is spammers routinely send messages to millions of made-up
addresses just to see which messages / addresses bounce and which don't.
They often create their list of potential addresses by picking an email
domain (which could easily be yours) and then computationally generating
a slew of potential user names by combining words from a dictionary or
name database along with various other sequential or random numbers and
other characters. Once they have this huge list of potential addresses,
(which absolutely may include yours), they spam them all
indiscriminately. None of the above requires Apple to have sent your
address to anyone at all. Sometimes spammers just get lucky.

You haven't offered a single shred of proof that Apple did anything at
all unwarranted with your email address. Until that time, you are
considered to be full of shit.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97370

On 2016-11-27 8:27 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I don't see any PROOF there.
>
> Then you don’t understand how disposable email addresses work.  If
> I give you a unique way to contact me and it ends up in the hands
> of spammers, the onus is on you to explain how that legitimately
> happened.
>

No.

That is far from proof. The word "proof" has a definite meaning.

What precisely was this email address?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97389

For your reference, records indicate that 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> That is far from proof. The word "proof" has a definite meaning.

Indeed it does.  And I have it in the form of a unique email address 
that I only gave to Apple’s affiliate program.  Again, the burden is 
on them (or *you* as their proxy defender) to explain how it is that 
random spam is now being sent to that *very* specific address.

> What precisely was this email address?

Don’t be stupid.  If I published it, I’d no longer be able rely on a 
chain of custody as it gets further used.  I haven’t disposed of it 
just yet because it doesn’t receive a large volume of spam.

If you want to play this game with an already published address, you 
can use the one in the From: header of this post.  It is unique to 
this channel of communication (Usenet) and I’m still using it because 
it hasn’t received much spam at all in the last couple of years 
(spammers don’t seem to care much about Usenet anymore; it used to be 
my main vector for spam just a few years ago).

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97390

In article <o1g4vl$puh$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> 
> > That is far from proof. The word "proof" has a definite meaning.
> 
> Indeed it does.  And I have it in the form of a unique email address 
> that I only gave to Apple¹s affiliate program.  Again, the burden is 
> on them (or *you* as their proxy defender) to explain how it is that 
> random spam is now being sent to that *very* specific address.

it doesn't matter who you gave it to or if you gave it to anyone.

spammers generate email addresses. some end up being valid, such as
yours.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97392

Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> 
>> That is far from proof. The word "proof" has a definite meaning.
> 
> Indeed it does.  And I have it in the form of a unique email address 
> that I only gave to Apple’s affiliate program.  

That's not proof of anything Apple did or did not do.

> Again, the burden is 
> on them (or *you* as their proxy defender) to explain how it is that 
> random spam is now being sent to that *very* specific address.

Complete nonsense! You are obviously and severely ignorant regarding the
methods used by spammers. The fact is you can be spammed without *any*
company giving your address away. Until you prove Apple gave your address
away you can stop accusing Apple of wrongdoing.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97396

In message <o1g4vl$puh$1@dont-email.me> 
  Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

>> That is far from proof. The word "proof" has a definite meaning.

> Indeed it does.  And I have it in the form of a unique email address 
> that I only gave to Apple’s affiliate program.  Again, the burden is 
> on them (or *you* as their proxy defender) to explain how it is that 
> random spam is now being sent to that *very* specific address.

That was explained to you upthread.

-- 
Knowledge equals power... --... Power equals energy... People were
stupid, sometimes. They thought the Library was a dangerous place
because of all the magical books, which was true enough, but what made
it really one of the most dangerous places there could ever be was the
simple fact that it was a library. Energy equals matter... --... Matter
equals mass. And mass distorts space. It distorts it into polyfractal
L-Space. --Guards! Guards!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97399

On 2016-11-27 6:32 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> That is far from proof. The word "proof" has a definite meaning.
>
> Indeed it does.  And I have it in the form of a unique email address
> that I only gave to Apple’s affiliate program.  Again, the burden is
> on them (or *you* as their proxy defender) to explain how it is that
> random spam is now being sent to that *very* specific address.
>

No. The burden is on you the moment you claim you have PROOF.

>> What precisely was this email address?
>
> Don’t be stupid.  If I published it, I’d no longer be able rely on a
> chain of custody as it gets further used.  I haven’t disposed of it
> just yet because it doesn’t receive a large volume of spam.

Get over yourself.

>
> If you want to play this game with an already published address, you
> can use the one in the From: header of this post.  It is unique to
> this channel of communication (Usenet) and I’m still using it because
> it hasn’t received much spam at all in the last couple of years
> (spammers don’t seem to care much about Usenet anymore; it used to be
> my main vector for spam just a few years ago).

That's what you call something that cannot possibly be stumbled upon?

"droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97404

For your reference, records indicate that 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> No. The burden is on you the moment you claim you have PROOF.

And I have met that burden.  I have demonstrated that I use a 
“fingerprint” level of traceability and not a “lie detector” level.  
The *exact* email I used is not important, and you even asking for it 
shows you really don’t understand how to handle evidence.

> That's what you call something that cannot possibly be stumbled upon?
> 
> "droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com"

No, that was *not* my claim.  My claim is that *even in the case of a 
published email address*, I use unique ones that identify their origin.  
My claim is that, not only have spammers specifically *not* “stumbled 
upon” or generated any variations of that address, they really haven’t 
even scanned it *directly* from Usenet messages!  My claim is that just 
because you or a spammer can see an email address and *imagine* 
variations it could take, you’re not actually going to be *doing* 
anything of the sort because the *actual* combinations you’d have to 
test is intractable.  And that’s also why live dictionary attacks 
(outside of high-value targets like iCloud.com) generally just aren’t 
worth it; you’d be blocked between the time you tried aaron@ and adam@.

I use *many* different schemes for generating disposable email 
addresses, and private ones are specially catered to the level of trust 
that I have with the other party.  And on top of that I monitor *any 
and all* traffic that comes to my mail server.  I get more open relay 
scans than I get spam from published emails.

Whatever outdated notion of spam you have in your head, you need to 
correct it based on actual evidence.  It is people like me who use 
special techniques that can provide details on the practices that 
spammers use to obtain email addresses these days.  You only make a 
fool of yourself when you continue to insist you understand something, 
but clearly have nothing insightful to offer.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97409

On 2016-11-28 11:02 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> No. The burden is on you the moment you claim you have PROOF.
>
> And I have met that burden.  I have demonstrated that I use a
> “fingerprint” level of traceability and not a “lie detector” level.
> The *exact* email I used is not important, and you even asking for it
> shows you really don’t understand how to handle evidence.

No. That is not proof. That is preponderance of evidence, but not proof.

>
>> That's what you call something that cannot possibly be stumbled upon?
>>
>> "droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com"
>
> No, that was *not* my claim.  My claim is that *even in the case of a
> published email address*, I use unique ones that identify their origin.
> My claim is that, not only have spammers specifically *not* “stumbled
> upon” or generated any variations of that address, they really haven’t
> even scanned it *directly* from Usenet messages!  My claim is that just
> because you or a spammer can see an email address and *imagine*
> variations it could take, you’re not actually going to be *doing*
> anything of the sort because the *actual* combinations you’d have to
> test is intractable.  And that’s also why live dictionary attacks
> (outside of high-value targets like iCloud.com) generally just aren’t
> worth it; you’d be blocked between the time you tried aaron@ and adam@.

"Intractable" doesn't mean "impossible".


>
> I use *many* different schemes for generating disposable email
> addresses, and private ones are specially catered to the level of trust
> that I have with the other party.  And on top of that I monitor *any
> and all* traffic that comes to my mail server.  I get more open relay
> scans than I get spam from published emails.

Whatever. What you cannot show is that a spammer just didn't get lucky.

The chances of winning the lottery are small... ...but that doesn't mean 
that the fix is in each time someone DOES win.

>
> Whatever outdated notion of spam you have in your head, you need to
> correct it based on actual evidence.  It is people like me who use
> special techniques that can provide details on the practices that
> spammers use to obtain email addresses these days.  You only make a
> fool of yourself when you continue to insist you understand something,
> but clearly have nothing insightful to offer.

Yes. You're a security GOD!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97436

For your reference, records indicate that 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> No. That is not proof. That is preponderance of evidence, but not proof.

It *is* proof, but it is not a conviction, which is apparently what 
you’re looking for.  But, then, *you* aren’t in any position to pass 
judgement, or even a party with standing in the case.  So stop thinking 
you get to make any more foolish demands.  If Apple (or their affiliate 
program partner) is unhappy with my claims, they are welcome to take me 
to court and we can then *all* find out what the quality of everyone’s 
evidence is.  Hint: Apple has known about this since August 2014.

> "Intractable" doesn't mean "impossible".

You just can’t stop making a fool of yourself, can you?  Stop anomaly 
hunting and start thinking with your brain.  Just because something 
is *possible* doesn’t mean it *must* be happening.  Again, there 
would be evidence of such actions as a dictionary attack.  There is 
no consilience that favors your thinking.  Do yourself a favor and 
just admit your assumptions are incorrect, and strive to think more 
critically in the future.

> Whatever. What you cannot show is that a spammer just didn't get lucky.

Do you really think that’s how spam operations are run?  By luck?  
Either you are terminally clueless about the reality of the world, or 
you are *deeply* involved with spammers and are seeking to muddy the 
water with your irrational arguments.  Frankly, I don’t care either 
way.  I’m done with you.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97437

On 2016-11-29 6:44 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> No. That is not proof. That is preponderance of evidence, but not proof.
>
> It *is* proof, but it is not a conviction, which is apparently what
> you’re looking for.  But, then, *you* aren’t in any position to pass
> judgement, or even a party with standing in the case.  So stop thinking
> you get to make any more foolish demands.  If Apple (or their affiliate
> program partner) is unhappy with my claims, they are welcome to take me
> to court and we can then *all* find out what the quality of everyone’s
> evidence is.  Hint: Apple has known about this since August 2014.

No. Sorry, but it's just not.

>
>> "Intractable" doesn't mean "impossible".
>
> You just can’t stop making a fool of yourself, can you?  Stop anomaly
> hunting and start thinking with your brain.  Just because something
> is *possible* doesn’t mean it *must* be happening.  Again, there
> would be evidence of such actions as a dictionary attack.  There is
> no consilience that favors your thinking.  Do yourself a favor and
> just admit your assumptions are incorrect, and strive to think more
> critically in the future.

Your assumption is that there is no possible way someone simply guessed 
your email.

That assumption is simply wrong.

>
>> Whatever. What you cannot show is that a spammer just didn't get lucky.
>
> Do you really think that’s how spam operations are run?  By luck?
> Either you are terminally clueless about the reality of the world, or
> you are *deeply* involved with spammers and are seeking to muddy the
> water with your irrational arguments.  Frankly, I don’t care either
> way.  I’m done with you.

Do you imagine that it matters to a spammer if the method they choose 
happens to hit upon your email address by luck?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97440

On 2016-11-29, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> On 2016-11-29 6:44 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>> For your reference, records indicate that
>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever. What you cannot show is that a spammer just didn't get lucky.
>>
>> Do you really think that’s how spam operations are run?  By luck?
>> Either you are terminally clueless about the reality of the world, or
>> you are *deeply* involved with spammers and are seeking to muddy the
>> water with your irrational arguments.  Frankly, I don’t care either
>> way.  I’m done with you.
>
> Do you imagine that it matters to a spammer if the method they choose 
> happens to hit upon your email address by luck?

Of course not. By and large, spam is sent by compromised personal
computers all over the world that are part of bot nets. It is of no
consequence to spammers if one or all of those thousands of machines
happens to send out a bunch of emails that bounce.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97439

On 2016-11-29, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> No. That is not proof. That is preponderance of evidence, but not proof.
>
> It *is* proof

Nope. The only proof you have offered is that you got a spam email. You
haven't proven how the spammer got your address, and you certainly
haven't proven Apple played a part in it.

> You just can’t stop making a fool of yourself, can you?

Look in the mirror.

>> Whatever. What you cannot show is that a spammer just didn't get
>> lucky.
>
> Do you really think that’s how spam operations are run?  By luck?

It is absolutely how they operate. Spammers often don't give a rat's ass
whether the addresses they spam are legitimate reachable addresses. More
often than not, the machine sending the mass messages isn't even owned
by the spammer and is part of a bot net. 

> Either you are terminally clueless about the reality of the world

Again, look in the mirror. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97410

On 2016-11-28, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> No. The burden is on you the moment you claim you have PROOF.
>
> And I have met that burden.

No you haven't.

> I have demonstrated that I use a “fingerprint” level of traceability
> and not a “lie detector” level.  

Speaking of lies... You haven't demonstrated a single shred of proof of
your assertion that Apple gave your email address to anyone at all.

> You only make a fool of yourself when you continue to insist you
> understand something, but clearly have nothing insightful to offer.

Look in the mirror.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97430

In message <o1hv03$eik$1@dont-email.me> 
  Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

>> No. The burden is on you the moment you claim you have PROOF.

> And I have met that burden.

Pulling opinion out of your ass is not proof.

> My claim is that just because you or a spammer can see an email
> address and *imagine* variations it could take, you’re not actually
> going to be *doing* anything of the sort because the *actual*
> combinations you’d have to test is intractable.

Perfect proof you have no clue.

> I use *many* different schemes for generating disposable email 
> addresses, and private ones are specially catered to the level of trust 
> that I have with the other party.  And on top of that I monitor *any 
> and all* traffic that comes to my mail server.

Suuuure you do.

-- 
Vampires have risen from the dead, the grave and the crypt, but have
never managed it from the cat. --Witches Abroad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web