Stripsearch / End of spam predicted

[Chris Fortune]

> My hope is that more and more people will attain the 99.8%+ filtration rate,
> and it will eventually become too expensive (even at fractions of a penny
> per email) for spammers to stay in business.  ....
> .... there is definitely a limit to how much a spammer can profitably spam.

Good financial argument, but there's one assumption that's wrong, it doesn't matter if nobody buys spammer's products, that's not
what finances the largest spam businesses.  Here's the con job:  Spammer Inc. advertises various bulk mail advertising packages to
wannabe mail order tycoons.  Sucker takes the bait and pays a reasonable low fee to Spammer Inc.  Spammer Inc sends out a few
million emails, using a bot network, stolen resources, yada yada, whatever is their superior weapon, it doesn't matter anyway.  Even
if they do have good penetration, nobody in their right mind is going to read that spam or buy any junk, and even if they do,
there's not much profit in that.  Instead, Spammer Inc will arrange to purchase a few items from the sucker, then present the sucker
with a revenues cheque and a carefully doctored accounting report, and sweeten him up for the Big Con:  an exclusive, members only,
several thousand dollar investment in the Platinum Bulk Mail Package.   Of course sucker loses his shirt and Spammer Inc has
plausible deniability.  If they think they can take sucker for another bigger ride, they buy some more of his junk and do it all
over again.  These are the guys who are sending out gazillions of emails, and are willing to research how to penetrate filters.
It's not about product sales at all, it's about fraud.


> >> The SCAM-ADDRESS
> > Check attachement [
> > Annual_Privacy_and_Electronic_Fund_Transfer_Rights_Notice.eml ]
>
> I didn't get an attachment.

bogofilter mailing list seems to have removed it?  The href's were in this format http://paypal.com/?s8s980s8 , and the query
strings were all different.  Only the last one was marked as SCAM-ADDRESS.


> > I tried running stripsearch against both head and body.  There's a
> > theoretical danger of false positives, but it has the added bonus
> > of "messing up" and disabling spam email so that it doesn't execute in
> > security-challenged clients like Outlook Express.
>
> That's not such a good idea.

That was supposed to be a joke, but now that I read it again, it actually wasn't that funny.