Re: [LUG] sendmail rejects

[Neil Williams <neil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian Midgley wrote:
> On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:45, Simon Waters wrote:
>
>
> > So the spam will come from elsewhere - so the benefit is only ensuring
> > Paypal scams come from Paypal employees and crackers, or paypa1.com
>
>
> Effective spam will come from where it says it comes from ...
> which exposes the spammer/scammer to a significantly increased personal risk.


Only 419 scams need to actually have a reply by email - the majority are 
advertising websites. From: is therefore irrelevant.


> Compromising machines may be easy, but compromising _particular selected_ 
> machines I'd expect to be harder, again if the attacks on them have to be 
> targetted rather than random the attacker is exposed a little more.

Not when the means of attack is randomly compromised machines. It's a 
second level issue: A random machine is compromised. The compromising 
agent has a FIXED target or set of targets. Therefore, randomly 
compromised machines make it easy to target specific machines and at no 
time is the original attacker exposed.



--

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.codehelp.co.uk/
http://www.dclug.org.uk/
http://www.isbn.org.uk/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/

http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature