[Scspamcop] Re: eh?

[Glenn Daniels]

'jg' opined:

> Thanks for that input, Mike, I was sorta looking for some thing positive
> to come out.
> Lets assume its a volunteer, as you say. Wouldn't do much good to route
> samples through an ISP that rejects it as spam.

<Plausible deniability> I think gmail mostly "sorts stuff", as I
have my own configured to actually deliver some ugly stuff
being forwarded from a "trusted" yahoo! account.

That said, there is a history of virms in .zip format that would
autorun on delivery and appear as "empty" when viewed, while
the payload malware was later detected in the firewall buffer.
/I think/ gmail is not unique in rejecting .zip payloads.
</plausible deniability>

> That said, think I just read about the very spam I had sent - had a .zip
> attachment which apparently contained a nasty virus.

Actually it was calling itself a .zip but was in fact a .rar.
Actually, I was looking for your alleged "phish" but was
rewarded with a plain ascii text file Pimp&Dump...

> Think I saw it at alt.spam.

A matching specimen was discussed in NANAE,  but I
don't recall it making alt.spam.  Not necessarily useful
observation as my killfiles take out more than half of
what gets posted...

> I've been to their site - maybe I'll sign up and see how it goes...

Never "signed up", but at one time I was actively sending
them links to phishing sites... I note also that there are other
online antiphishing services/resources available...

Cheers,
Glenn