[Scspamcop] Re: low importance - anyone know what this spammer is peddling?

[Mike Easter]

Mike Easter wrote:

> It is a big waste of time for a citizen to try to uncover the nature
> of a scam.  The guidelines are 'defend yourself'.  The way you defend
> yourself the most efficiently is to not open/read your spam.  You also
> defend yourself by not corresponding with the spammer.

Larry in AZ might not agree with me about this or might find me
'intolerant' of 'normal' spammee behavior, but to me it is part of an
antispam philosophy, so I will elaborate.

Not everyone is going to be a spamcop reporter;  so that version of
antispam action is limited to some very tiny 'subset' of spam
recipients.

However, a much much larger percentage of the population can be
convinced to never aid a spammer/spamvertiser or spamsupporter.  That is
a form of passive spamfighting, to pledge to never ever do anything to
aid a spammer.

Therefore, there is no need nor advantage in opening and reading a spam.
That opening and reading if done insecurely might result in 'signalling'
the spam generator that the spam has been opened.  In terms of scoring
points by a little game I imagine, a spammer scores points if s/he gets
the spam into your inbox instead of blocked or filtered or diverted to
Junk;  because that means that the spammee is putting hir eyeballs on
the spam's subject and from and that is to the spammer's advantage.

A spammer scores even more points if the result of the success in
getting the spam into the inbox and getting the spammees eyeballs on the
subject and from result in the spammee opening and reading the spam.  It
doesn't matter what is going on in the mind of the spammee,

 - That is the stupidest spam I have ever seen!
 - What on earth is going on in the mind of this spammer?
 - I wonder if this is really a good deal in here?
 - Ohmigod I can't believe they sent this!  Eeek!

>From a 'psychological' point of view, the important thing is the
'interest' -- any kind of interest.

If you think that you are going to defeat the spammer by uncovering hir
plot to defraud, you are wrong.  You are wasting your time.

>From an antispamming perspective, I can help spamcoppers understand
spamcop and parsing headers.  I can try to convince the public to filter
their spam into a Junk folder and to pledge to never aid a spammer which
is best done by never having to see a spamsubject or spamfrom which
hasn't already been identified as spam.

Then, to be a stronger passive antispammer by never opening and reading
a spam.  To reinforce that concept, I'm saying that it is a /better/
passive antispammer who never opens and reads their spam than the
antispammer who is just pledged to never aid a spammer.

Further;  there are spamcoppers - spamcop reporters - who are not as
'healthy' in the antispam behaviors as some passive nonreporting anti-s.
There are reporters who open spam to see if there is a good deal and who
are not completely pledged to never aid a spammer.

Spam works because it is human nature to be curious and curiously
interested.  When the spammee is exhibiting those curiosity behaviors, I
try to convince them that in terms of antispammer 'integrity', they are
best to be pledged antispammers than curious spamreaders.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as an advanced antispammer who is
capable of doing more 'destructive' things to spammers by opening spam
and reading spam and visiting spamsites to look for vulnerabilities.

The fact that there is such an antispammer animal doesn't mean that I
should think that every Santa Claus I see on the street during the Xmas
season is the real thing -- and it doesn't mean that spamcoppers should
put on their cloak of being a spamcop reporter to justify being a
curious spamreader.

Those are some psychological considerations to be gained from discussing
this spam.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin