1. Welcome Guest! In order to create a new topic or reply to an existing one, you must register first. It is easy and free. Click here to sign up now!.
    Dismiss Notice

test

Discussion in 'Windows Security' started by adslfjadslf, Sep 6, 2009.

  1. adslfjadslf

    adslfjadslf Guest

    twoteals@yahoo.com
    twoteals at yahoo.com
    twoteals @ yahoo.com
    twoteals [at] yahoo.com

    twoteals at yahoo dot com

    Varnyard@yahoo.com

    varnyard at yahoo.com

    varnyard @ yahoo.com

    varnyard [at] yahoo.com

    varnyard at yahoo dot com

    twoteals@yahoo.com

    twoteals at yahoo.com

    twoteals @ yahoo.com

    twoteals [at] yahoo.com

    twoteals at yahoo dot com

    Varnyard@yahoo.com

    varnyard at yahoo.com

    varnyard @ yahoo.com

    varnyard [at] yahoo.com

    varnyard at yahoo dot com

    twoteals@yahoo.com

    twoteals at yahoo.com

    twoteals @ yahoo.com

    twoteals [at] yahoo.com

    twoteals at yahoo dot com

    Varnyard@yahoo.com

    varnyard at yahoo.com

    varnyard @ yahoo.com

    varnyard [at] yahoo.com

    varnyard at yahoo dot com

    twoteals@yahoo.com

    twoteals at yahoo.com

    twoteals @ yahoo.com

    twoteals [at] yahoo.com

    twoteals at yahoo dot com

    Varnyard@yahoo.com

    varnyard at yahoo.com

    varnyard @ yahoo.com

    varnyard [at] yahoo.com


    varnyard at yahoo dot com
     
    adslfjadslf, Sep 6, 2009
    #1
  3. Max Wachtel

    Max Wachtel Guest

    On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:30:52 -0400, adslfjadslf <jd665775@gmail.com> wrote:
    failed
    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
     
    Max Wachtel, Sep 7, 2009
    #2
  4. Virus Guy

    Virus Guy Guest

    I am copying the OP via e-mail as part of this reply.

    adslfjadslf wrote:
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > twoteals@yahoo.com
    > twoteals at yahoo.com
    > twoteals @ yahoo.com
    > twoteals [at] yahoo.com<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Your attempt to test the e-mail address harvesting abilities of spammers
    is not welcome here, and the design of your test is faulty.

    You are testing various ways that an e-mail address can be obfuscated or
    munged and still be reconstructed by address havesting mechanisms
    operating on usenet posts.

    The name component of your test address (twoteals in the above example)
    should have been altered on each line. If you end up recieving spam to
    that address, you will not know which (or how many) of those 4 lines was
    successfully parsed and reconstructed to yield a working target address
    because they are all the same address.
     
    Virus Guy, Sep 7, 2009
    #3
  5. FromTheRafters

    FromTheRafters Guest

    Did it occur to you that the purpose of the post was only to get those
    addresses harvested?

    "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message
    news:4AA518E3.5DF505DE@Guy.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    >I am copying the OP via e-mail as part of this reply.
    >
    > adslfjadslf wrote:
    ><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> twoteals@yahoo.com
    >> twoteals at yahoo.com
    >> twoteals @ yahoo.com
    >> twoteals [at] yahoo.com<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >
    > Your attempt to test the e-mail address harvesting abilities of
    > spammers
    > is not welcome here, and the design of your test is faulty.
    >
    > You are testing various ways that an e-mail address can be obfuscated
    > or
    > munged and still be reconstructed by address havesting mechanisms
    > operating on usenet posts.
    >
    > The name component of your test address (twoteals in the above
    > example)
    > should have been altered on each line. If you end up recieving spam
    > to
    > that address, you will not know which (or how many) of those 4 lines
    > was
    > successfully parsed and reconstructed to yield a working target
    > address
    > because they are all the same address. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
     
    FromTheRafters, Sep 7, 2009
    #4
  6. Virus Guy

    Virus Guy Guest

    FromTheRafters wrote:
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > Did it occur to you that the purpose of the post was only to get
    > those addresses harvested?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    > >> twoteals@yahoo.com
    > >> twoteals at yahoo.com
    > >> twoteals @ yahoo.com
    > >> twoteals [at] yahoo.com<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Then why post multiple versions of the same address?

    Especially versions that require them to be un-munged?

    It's usually claimed that addresses in the header of usenet posts are
    the ones most harvested, with very few harvesters looking in the message
    body. In this case, the OP specifically avoided using the desired
    target address in the header.

    I wonder why he posted using the microsoft server, instead of directly
    to google groups.

    With the start of a new school year, this was most probably someone's
    comp-sci project to test address harvesting.
     
    Virus Guy, Sep 7, 2009
    #5
  7. FromTheRafters

    FromTheRafters Guest

    "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message
    news:4AA53CF2.B66A5E3E@Guy.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > FromTheRafters wrote:
    ><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> Did it occur to you that the purpose of the post was only to get
    >> those addresses harvested?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    ><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >> >> twoteals@yahoo.com
    >> >> twoteals at yahoo.com
    >> >> twoteals @ yahoo.com
    >> >> twoteals [at] yahoo.com<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >
    > Then why post multiple versions of the same address?
    > Especially versions that require them to be un-munged?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    To populate the servers (and the usenet to web interfaces' webpages)
    with as many versions of those addresses as possible that simple
    un-munging can deal with?
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > It's usually claimed that addresses in the header of usenet posts are
    > the ones most harvested, with very few harvesters looking in the
    > message
    > body. In this case, the OP specifically avoided using the desired
    > target address in the header.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Usenet posts are textual in nature, I rather doubt that it matters other
    than for the fact that headers can be downloaded seperately from the
    body much more quickly than entire articles can. Now with articles
    magically becoming webpages, bodiesmay be the new "low hanging fruit".
    Similar to the way URLs get multiply posted to skew search engine
    results.
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > I wonder why he posted using the microsoft server, instead of directly
    > to google groups.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Well, you did more investigation than I did. I didn't even look at the
    headers.
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > With the start of a new school year, this was most probably someone's
    > comp-sci project to test address harvesting.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Yeah, that could be.
     
    FromTheRafters, Sep 7, 2009
    #6

Share This Page