Re: [OT] 'Email this story to a friend'
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 49324
interpreted = N
texte = Alex,I just barely averted spamcop hell last week for something different (but purely unintentional on my part), and that's why this is a concern for me right now.As a result of this other spamcop 'infraction' and knowing that I had this current project on the horizon, I did my homework, I found someone's 'open' form. I masked my IP, I hacked it. I sent myself a few emails 'from' the form owner. If I was a malicious jerk, I could have reported them to spamcop a few times in a few minutes and then enjoyed an evil laugh as I pictured them burning in spamcop hell. Instead, I sent an anonymous email (via the form, of course... tee hee) to the webmaster and let him know that his form was 'open' with some suggestions on how to fix it.My problem is not with spammers, per se, I can safeguard that to some degree, my problem is with the recipients reporting the unsolicited email to spamcop, which I can't control, but I think I could minimize if I could verify the sender to some degree.That's all. Maybe there's no way to stop it, really. Maybe spamcop is the problem...Ok, thanks for everybody's advice. It sounds like I'm on the right track, and I'm not alone in worrying about the repercussions of setting up a 'free for all' like this.-Dan ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.StrongGraphicDesign.com (208) 319-0137 | Toll-free p/f 877-561-1656 ------------------------------------------------------------On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 12:46:42 Alex McCombie
wrote: >On 4/8/03 12:22 PM, Donovan wrote: > >> (so many requests within a time period from a single IP, Subject >> containing certain key words etc..etc...) >So many from an IP is a really good idea. Though it requires a bit of work >on the server end (database)... But would be a very responsible thing to do. > >Another one that is very effective is the checking of referrer. 99.9% of the >'hacking' that occurs on these scripts are form outside (local) forms that >have been modified calling the processing tpl. Referrer would stop most/all >of those. > >Checking for expiring cookies that have increments would be another way of >screening the undesirables. > >There are plenty smart ways to keep this from becoming a 'useful' tool for >spammers...which is the real issue. Sending an email back to the sender to >allow them to click a link to send the story out is definitely a doable one, >but the point of all of it is that it doesn't stop unsolicited email. It >just makes it more difficult. > >Having just gone through spam cop hell (which is the most unregulated, >untested, even irresponsible system I have ever seen), I can tell you that >if you implement the measures above (referrer check, cookie or IP limits) >even if someone does get a unsolicited email, it will be a rarity and as >such single occurrences wouldn't have much of an impact from spamcop anyway. > >Be responsible. Be diligent in your counter measures & be clear in your >email why and how they are receiving the email. > >Again... All just one man's opinions and experiences. > > >Alex > > >Alex J McCombie New World Media >Chief Information Officer Drawer 607 >800/724.8973 Fair Haven, NY 13064 >Alex@NewWorldMedia.com http://OurClients.com > >Interface Designer WebDNA Programmer Database Designer > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Alex,I just barely averted spamcop hell last week for something different (but purely unintentional on my part), and that's why this is a concern for me right now.As a result of this other spamcop 'infraction' and knowing that I had this current project on the horizon, I did my homework, I found someone's 'open' form. I masked my IP, I hacked it. I sent myself a few emails 'from' the form owner. If I was a malicious jerk, I could have reported them to spamcop a few times in a few minutes and then enjoyed an evil laugh as I pictured them burning in spamcop hell. Instead, I sent an anonymous email (via the form, of course... tee hee) to the webmaster and let him know that his form was 'open' with some suggestions on how to fix it.My problem is not with spammers, per se, I can safeguard that to some degree, my problem is with the recipients reporting the unsolicited email to spamcop, which I can't control, but I think I could minimize if I could verify the sender to some degree.That's all. Maybe there's no way to stop it, really. Maybe spamcop is the problem...Ok, thanks for everybody's advice. It sounds like I'm on the right track, and I'm not alone in worrying about the repercussions of setting up a 'free for all' like this.-Dan ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.StrongGraphicDesign.com (208) 319-0137 | Toll-free p/f 877-561-1656 ------------------------------------------------------------On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 12:46:42 Alex McCombie wrote: >On 4/8/03 12:22 PM, Donovan wrote: > >> (so many requests within a time period from a single IP, Subject >> containing certain key words etc..etc...) >So many from an IP is a really good idea. Though it requires a bit of work >on the server end (database)... But would be a very responsible thing to do. > >Another one that is very effective is the checking of referrer. 99.9% of the >'hacking' that occurs on these scripts are form outside (local) forms that >have been modified calling the processing tpl. Referrer would stop most/all >of those. > >Checking for expiring cookies that have increments would be another way of >screening the undesirables. > >There are plenty smart ways to keep this from becoming a 'useful' tool for >spammers...which is the real issue. Sending an email back to the sender to >allow them to click a link to send the story out is definitely a doable one, >but the point of all of it is that it doesn't stop unsolicited email. It >just makes it more difficult. > >Having just gone through spam cop hell (which is the most unregulated, >untested, even irresponsible system I have ever seen), I can tell you that >if you implement the measures above (referrer check, cookie or IP limits) >even if someone does get a unsolicited email, it will be a rarity and as >such single occurrences wouldn't have much of an impact from spamcop anyway. > >Be responsible. Be diligent in your counter measures & be clear in your >email why and how they are receiving the email. > >Again... All just one man's opinions and experiences. > > >Alex > > >Alex J McCombie New World Media >Chief Information Officer Drawer 607 >800/724.8973 Fair Haven, NY 13064 >Alex@NewWorldMedia.com http://OurClients.com > >Interface Designer WebDNA Programmer Database Designer > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Dan Strong
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Giving out error pages (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997)
Searching multiple Databases (1997)
Foreign Chars (יאצה and so on) (1998)
[WebDNA] WebDNA 7 multiple fcgid processes (2012)
[WebDNA] El Capitan (2017)
Different Tax levels (1998)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
Summing fields (1997)
best way to get 2 unique strings on the same page load? (2000)
URGENT! ACGI Stopped!!!! (1997)
debit cards and checksum (1998)
test (2007)
possible, WebCat2.0 and checkboxes-restated (1997)
Showif Context combined with Search (1997)
RE: type 2 errors with ssl server (1997)
[append] vs. [appendfile] delta + question? (1997)
RE: Force a number with JavaScript (1998)
Concealing WebCatalog in the URL (2000)
WebMerchant 1.6 and https (1997)