Comments on: Hiding spamtraps in plain sight http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:03:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: John D http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-19490 Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:14:36 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-19490 I've been trying this since at least February, maybe earlier...... 100-110MB average data transfer a month on my site, and not a single message in the mailbox I set up for both "mailharvester.boobytrap@admin.jdaltpol.co.uk" (hidden on the entrance to my personal website's CONTACT page) & "spambot.trap@jdaltpol.co.uk" (hidden in the membership listings for the messageboard on my MONTY PYTHON fansite). I’ve been trying this since at least February, maybe earlier…… 100-110MB average data transfer a month on my site, and not a single message in the mailbox I set up for both “mailharvester.boobytrap@admin.jdaltpol.co.uk” (hidden on the entrance to my personal website’s CONTACT page) & “spambot.trap@jdaltpol.co.uk” (hidden in the membership listings for the messageboard on my MONTY PYTHON fansite).

]]> by: Gilles http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-16536 Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:18:27 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-16536 Usually, when I have to let an email address on a site, I try to let a personnalize address on this site, so, if I received any spam at this address, I know who are connect to the spammer gang. As the post topic, it's a different matter. The site owner hide some address to feed the spammers database. It's different. Usually, when I have to let an email address on a site, I try to let a personnalize address on this site, so, if I received any spam at this address, I know who are connect to the spammer gang. As the post topic, it’s a different matter. The site owner hide some address to feed the spammers database. It’s different.

]]> by: Administrator http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-16418 Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:12:25 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-16418 Gilles has been sleeping in class. He signed my blog with one of those "tagged by site he commented on" addresses. Gilles has been sleeping in class. He signed my blog with one of those “tagged by site he commented on” addresses.

]]> by: Gilles http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-16385 Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:29:50 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-16385 This WEB POISON stuff is just another stupid idea promote by low life people. Noboby need that kind of crab. If you think, you will bother spammer harvesting robot, think again. They don't care, and BTW, they will reject any fake domain. If you put a valid domain, with fake prefixe, you just corrupted this email address, if an harvesting robots add this address to his database. Nobody will be able to use this address as his own address when it's use by spammers. Finally, if you but some valid email, the email, will just continue to received lots of spam message. BTW, their enough fake email in spammers databese to feed all the spam trap in the market. Try to be more inovative to fight spam. See the web poison original site: http://www.webpoison.org/ This WEB POISON stuff is just another stupid idea promote by low life people. Noboby need that kind of crab.

If you think, you will bother spammer harvesting robot, think again. They don’t care, and BTW, they will reject any fake domain. If you put a valid domain, with fake prefixe, you just corrupted this email address, if an harvesting robots add this address to his database. Nobody will be able to use this address as his own address when it’s use by spammers.

Finally, if you but some valid email, the email, will just continue to received lots of spam message.

BTW, their enough fake email in spammers databese to feed all the spam trap in the market.

Try to be more inovative to fight spam.

See the web poison original site:

http://www.webpoison.org/

]]> by: Feoff http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-13369 Wed, 31 May 2006 11:03:13 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-13369 I've just published a new website (about a week old) and I've been forced to remove the email contact off the site already because of the amount of spam I have been bombarded with. These spamming grubs are amazing I’ve just published a new website (about a week old) and I’ve been forced to remove the email contact off the site already because of the amount of spam I have been bombarded with. These spamming grubs are amazing

]]> by: Search Engines WEB http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-13144 Wed, 31 May 2006 00:49:33 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-13144 Ironically, Search Engines DO follow the nofollow - perhaps it is a statistical error or defective programming - but using the LINK: operator in all the major SEs (GYM) back links were being attributed to sites that used the nofollow on the link..... of couse one could still use robots.txt and disalllow or keep changing the URL name of that page often enough to insure that it could never be linked to. another interesting experiment is to find out if any bots read <b>IMAGES - YES IMAGES ...</b>by putting a black and white arial Gif image of an Email address... Some blogs are using SUCH complex and hard to read image verification - that one suspects they are aware of bot-reading-image technology :LOL Ironically, Search Engines DO follow the nofollow - perhaps it is a statistical error or defective programming - but using the LINK: operator in all the major SEs (GYM) back links were being attributed to sites that used the nofollow on the link…..

of couse one could still use robots.txt and disalllow or keep changing the URL name of that page often enough to insure that it could never be linked to.

another interesting experiment is to find out if any bots read IMAGES - YES IMAGES …by putting a black and white arial Gif image of an Email address…

Some blogs are using SUCH complex and hard to read image verification - that one suspects they are aware of bot-reading-image technology :LOL

]]> by: Spam Target Breakdown | K-Squared Ramblings http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12748 Mon, 29 May 2006 06:58:44 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12748 [...] A number of our spamtrap addresses are “seeded” by hiding them on websites. Put it somewhere that no human visitor will notice, ’cause the harvesting bots will see it anyway. There’s a whole set scattered across this domain, for instance, and even the spamtraps hidden in different areas of this site attract different types of spammers. [...] […] A number of our spamtrap addresses are “seeded” by hiding them on websites. Put it somewhere that no human visitor will notice, ’cause the harvesting bots will see it anyway. There’s a whole set scattered across this domain, for instance, and even the spamtraps hidden in different areas of this site attract different types of spammers. […]

]]> by: Kelson http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12396 Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:33 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12396 This technique definitely works. We get tons of spam sent to spamtraps concealed just this way -- though the amount seems to be related to traffic, as if the harvester bots only target sites they deem worth the effort of finding addresses. Are you familiar with <a href="http://www.projecthoneypot.org/" rel="nofollow">Project Honeypot</a>? It works on roughly the same theory, but with a unique address generated for each page read so that a given target address can be linked to a particular harvesting bot. They leave the method of concealing the link up to the participating webmaster, but they have a number of suggestions This technique definitely works. We get tons of spam sent to spamtraps concealed just this way — though the amount seems to be related to traffic, as if the harvester bots only target sites they deem worth the effort of finding addresses.

Are you familiar with Project Honeypot? It works on roughly the same theory, but with a unique address generated for each page read so that a given target address can be linked to a particular harvesting bot. They leave the method of concealing the link up to the participating webmaster, but they have a number of suggestions

]]> by: SteveB http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12363 Fri, 26 May 2006 19:11:16 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12363 Is the regex important to you? If so, then I put it on a web page or I can send it to you. Else I leave it the way it is. Is the regex important to you? If so, then I put it on a web page or I can send it to you. Else I leave it the way it is.

]]> by: Administrator http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12341 Fri, 26 May 2006 15:16:46 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/05/26/hiding-spamtraps-in-plain-sight/#comment-12341 Yeah, WP is like that. Mangles code every chance it gets. You'd need to put it in a text file and link to the text file. Yeah, WP is like that. Mangles code every chance it gets. You’d need to put it in a text file and link to the text file.

]]>