" because it may easily be used to lute users into visiting malware-tainted websites."
Clearly a security violination.
Spammers are using Google Translate to disguise links to dodgy websites. All sorts of internet pond life, particularly purveyors of blue pills purporting to pump blokes' performance between the sheets, are relying on the reputation of Google's language translation service to smuggle web links through mail filters. Security …
I know, my first thought was "What? People still click on links in dodgy emails? Huh!"
Next they will be confused as to why their pc starts running really slow and why their apps keep failing. Then they come to us and ask can we rebuild their PC. I always say yes and hand them back a PC with Linux on it (along with a demand for a crate of decent claret, well we all have our price) with all the settings nailed down and they have only a user password. Sorted.
how does linux stop idiots clicking on links and giving their credit card details to fake online pharmacies? surely even linux idiots are the same as windows idiots in this instance? All that will happen is that you wont get any repeat customers (you create an image after the first rebuild yes?) for habitual malware clickers.
I use frame-breaking code on the top-level pages of all our websites, to prevent unscrupulous operators from framing our sites to make it look like part of theirs, or to spy on or capture information about users of our sites. Big companies like Google and Microsoft have been just as guilty of this as the spammers and other scumbag operators are. So our frame-breaker helps protect your privacy and provides you with assurance that you are on the correct site, when you visit one of our sites.
Rest assured, if Google do find a way to override our frame-breaking code, we will be engaging in R&D to circumvent this and ensure our sites continue to break out of other sites' frames, including Google's.
A never ending arms race. The spammers on one side, and the anti-spammers on the other.
It all boils down to a simple truth. People SPAM because it works. Yes, the yield is low, but the spammers have numbers in their favor. Send out a million emails, and even if you get 0.1% yield, it still is a big enough number (1000) to earn money, or rape users computers.
If we all went back to plain text email (so you had to do things like select then click on a link, and it couldn't be obfuscated, it might be better. The problem is that nobody wants to do this as it makes it very inconvenient. So, we live with spam (hoping to not contribute to is exploitation), and use all sorts of "anti" programs. Life goes on.
So, teach your children well, and don't click that link.
I went to plain text just to ward of the gigantic signatures that are nothing but a single image (To make sure the formatting stays and to prevent people from stealing their contact info [I know, but they won't listen]).
My email client is does allow clicking and following links in plain-text emails, but it can't be obfuscated.
I happen to be a UTF-8 luddite. I don't mind Unicode emails, but I don't like HTML emails.
Google have got themselves into a little bit of hot water with their new Composer interface, which they try to force on to their users. There is a "plain text" option, but it appears to be HTML underneath. People are not happy.
> I happen to be a UTF-8 luddite. I don't mind Unicode emails, but I don't like HTML emails.
UTF-8 is fine, however I find that its suitability is highly dependent on the fonts one uses at the other end. What looks perfectly fine is going to come out as mojibake on the other end.
the java 'on click' method that changes the clicked on URL at the moment of clicking thereby redirecting what appears to be a valid link, even hovering over the link will show what you think is the correct destination but presto whammo! click it and it sends you elsewhere!
Hope my NoScript can cope with this problem..
If the google was less EVIL or Yahoo was a bit closer to bankruptcy, then they would get sincere about stopping the spammer and increasing the value of the Internet for EVERYONE. Microsoft deserves some credit for hurting spammers upstream, but it is downstream where the spammers connect with the tiny supply of suckers, and Microsoft could do much better there.
Imagine some anti-spammer tools integrated into the email system. Tools that would go through several iterations and let you use your human intelligence to describe the spam and target the countermeasures and BREAK THE SPAMMERS' FINANCIAL MODELS. Imagine feedback on how often YOU are the first one to break a spammer's redirection link. Imagine opt-in for spam removal when the garbage is confirmed by other human spam fighters. Imagine faster work against the spammers' dropboxes and websites BEFORE the suckers can get back to the spammers.
We can do all of these things. You don't have to, but I would, and just a few more people like me would easily outnumber the extremely few suckers the spammers are so desperately searching for. I don't mind if you benefit, too. I just want to break the spammers.
How about you? Wouldn't you like better tools to make the world better? Can ANYONE point at ANYTHING good the spammers are doing?
" Imagine faster work against the spammers' dropboxes"
Unfortunately, Yahoo are absolutely useless at doing this; unless the spam actually originates from a Yahoo account, passing through their servers, THEY DO NOT CARE. Back in the days when they had a 'functioning' abuse@ address, I used to report the 419 scammers who offered an @yahoo dropbox. The gibbons at Yahoo would just send a rubber-stamp reply saying "This did not originate from our servers therefore it is not our problem." Sometimes, if I persisted, I might get a second rubber-stamp message to say "We'll have a look."
Now, Yahoo no longer accepts spam reports via abuse@ and requests submissions via a web-form. After much searching of their site, I eventually found a spam-reporting form. All reports go into a big hole and I have zero confidence that they are even read, let alone parsed for drop-box addresses. Yahoo only seems to offer advice for users of their web-based email. Telling me to "Click the spam button" does not help me; there is no "spam button" on Thunderbird.
That's why I hate Yahoo.
Firefox (and I would assume Chrome) check with a list of dodgy sites and warn the user that they really shouldn't visit this site. Now, this depends on kind-hearted souls who know dodgy-meds/419 etc. spams when they see them deliberately following them to report the final sites.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019