|
Re: Bluefrog under attack?
de Ron May 05/07/2006 10:22
On 6 May 2006 12:02:54 -0700, "meet_raman" <ramanpreet@gmail.com>
wrote:
>hmmmmm... @Ron
>
>if it doesnt work, why
>1> was the site attacked? apprently it did do "something"
Try THIS on for a conspiracy theory: Maybe the emails were sent by
Bluefrog to get noticed and the site was intentionally taken down to
get gullible people to believe "Well, if spammers are going to attack
it and the subscribers, it MUST work." Far out, but makes as much
sense as accepting as an article of faith that the attacks somehow
"prove" the service works without independently verifiable evidence
that the service actually does reduce spam.
>2> you did not respond to my earliar post. plz do have a look :)
My apology for at least not making a courtesy reply. I did read the
two blogs, but found them no more convincing than the conspiracy
theory in my paragraph above. The snub was not intentional. I posted
a rather lengthy response to another post lower in the thread that I
felt covered your messages as well. In retrospect, I should have
included at least one line of acknowledgement.
>3> i again ask you to read something (if i may!):
>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3011
>
>from this very page:
>
I read it. I also scanned the 233 posts and while Bluefrog fanatics
seemed to be in the majority, there were mixed results from the more
moderate posters who actually addressed the issue of whether using the
service resulted in an increase or decrease in spam. (And shouldn't
THAT be the criteria for deciding to use the service or not?)
Long time readers of this group will remember many "Mailwasher"
lemmings who simply could not be convinced to turn off the "bounce"
feature because they were TRUE BELIEVERS that it actually made a
difference in the amount of spam emails they received. Mailwasher
itself was (and LFW still is) a worthy and useful program, but the
"bounce" feature did nothing but add useless traffic and often create
unintended "spam" messages to people whose email address was spoofed
by a spammer. I see the same fervor being displayed by Bluefrog
converts.
Also, I don't know the credentials of the bloggers you use as
reference, but here's Fred Langa's take:
http://langa.com/newsletters/2005/2005-10-24.htm#2
Here's what Bob Rankin (Tourbus) had to say:
http://www.askbobrankin.com/blue_security_spam_solution.html
That leads "Aunty-Spam's Internet Patrol" article:
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/blue-frog-not-only-spams-webforms-its-blurry-hashed-for-extra-inaccuracy
That leads to Brian McWilliams "S*PAM KiNgS" article:
http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/blue_frog_and_t.html
If a "Who's Who" list like the above isn't sold on Bluefrog, I feel
like I'm in good company. Readers of THIS newsgroup also tend to be
more wary of what kind of code a program might be executing in the
background that the average user, and how their machines might be used
by another party without THEIR understanding the process completely.
If you can find one or more RECOGNIZED and RESPECTED internet gurus
who is willing to put their credibility on the line in support of
Bluefrog, I'll follow your link, but I won't chase any more sock
puppets.
I'd REALLY be impressed if one of these credible individuals went so
far as to impartially measure whether there was an increase or
decrease in spam as a result of the service by running independent
tests.
As I said before, if you're happy with Bluefrog, then I'm happy for
you. Just don't try to get me to drink the kool-aid with you.
--
Ron M.
>This sounds scary, but it's not as bad as it sounds. Blue
>Security's email address registry remains secure contrary to what
>this spammer would have you believe. The way subscribers' emails were
>obtained was by checking the spammer's own list of emails against the
>Do Not Intrude registry. Normally spammers will get the emails of those
>who subscribe returned to them and will then remove those emails from
>their spamming lists. This one, however, has taken another approach.
>Instead of taking those hits off of his spam lists, he is sending them
>these intimidating emails.
>
>What's so funny about this approach is that if you do remove yourself
>from the Blue Security registry, you'll still receive normal spam
>from this spammer. He has no intention of taking your email address off
>of his spam list, he just wants you to stop fighting back against the
>spam you already receive from him (Blue Security only goes after
>spammers who send spam emails with no opt-outs to its members). Emails
>like this are proof that Blue Security is getting noticed by these
>spammers by making it unprofitable for them to continue sending their
>unsolicited mail to unwilling recipients. Recently Blue Security has
>made great strides toward its goal of eliminating spam for its users.
>On the account where I received this email, I used to receive over a
>dozen spams every day. Recently, within the past two weeks, I have seen
>spam to this address slow and almost halt. Today I'm averaging just
>one or two spam emails daily.