Re: .doc only spam

[ha...@t-online.de]

>> I can see that the .gif only spam filters need to be broadened out
>> to handle .doc and probably proactively a bunch of other extensions.
>> 
>> {^_^}
>> 

As a linux shop I feel somewhat annoyed by MS file types too (say someone sends
a message consisting of a 2x2 table as .xls - the time needed to view the data, and get
it back where it belongs, is unproportionally long)
So I am contemplating the idea of replying to such mails similar to
"dear valued customer,
you have sent us a message with an attachment that could potentially contain a virus.
all such messages are quarantined for 24 hours and then rescanned with latest
virus signatures.
To avoid that delay in the future, we encourage you to use plaintext emails"

Other possible wording:
"you have sent us a message with an attachment that requires a specific program
to read (MS office). That program seems to cost Euro xxx currently.
Please understand that we are not going to spend that"

Wolfgang Hamann

Re: .doc only spam

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: <ha...@t-online.de>

>>> I can see that the .gif only spam filters need to be broadened out
>>> to handle .doc and probably proactively a bunch of other extensions.
>>> 
>>> {^_^}
>>> 
> 
> As a linux shop I feel somewhat annoyed by MS file types too (say someone sends
> a message consisting of a 2x2 table as .xls - the time needed to view the data, and get
> it back where it belongs, is unproportionally long)
> So I am contemplating the idea of replying to such mails similar to
> "dear valued customer,
> you have sent us a message with an attachment that could potentially contain a virus.
> all such messages are quarantined for 24 hours and then rescanned with latest
> virus signatures.
> To avoid that delay in the future, we encourage you to use plaintext emails"
> 
> Other possible wording:
> "you have sent us a message with an attachment that requires a specific program
> to read (MS office). That program seems to cost Euro xxx currently.
> Please understand that we are not going to spend that"

Um, wull, it's this way - they are not even going to get a reply.
There was no subject (which I expect will change with time) and
the body was all HTML with no text other than the purportedly
.doc file. Even from my customers I do not read THAT crap. Make the
.doc file an attachment and they have a little better chance. (And
for that I'd preview it with a plain text editor. The text can
usually be found and extracted that way enough to see if it is a
sane message or an ad.) I have Paul and Richard, my main customers,
well trained in that regard.

{^_-}

Re: .doc only spam

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "mouss" <us...@free.fr>

> John D. Hardin wrote:
>> On 9 Jul 2006 hamann.w@t-online.de wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> Other possible wording:
>>> "you have sent us a message with an attachment that requires a
>>> specific program to read (MS office). That program seems to cost
>>> Euro xxx currently. Please understand that we are not going to
>>> spend that"
>>>     
>>
>> Nah.
>>
>> " ... Please understand that if we have to purchase this program
>> solely to read your emails, we will bill you for the full cost of the
>> program, plus the time required to install it. Such time will be
>> billed at our regular rates (Euro xxx per hour, minimum 1 hour)."
>>
>>   
> [option 1]
> # latex foo
> # cp foo.dvi urgent.doc
> and send urgent.doc as a reply
> 
> [option 2]
> # cp /netbsd /tmp/important_info.doc (or whatever kernel you want)
> and send important_info.doc
> 
> 
> I tried both (only while getting angry after receiving a 10 MO .doc file 
> with only 2 pages - logos can get large), and at least you get some 
> fun... word will still spend some time loading these! and sometimes, it 
> attempts to "convert" them :-) So the guy at the other end generally 
> replies "Sorry to bother you, but the file you sent me seems to have 
> been trunctaed by our mail system. can you please resend it to my 
> address at hotmail/aol/... "

The point is that .gif only spam is potentially going to be replaced by
a new innovation, .doc with no text in an html wrapper spam. That
probably should be addressed.

{o.o}

Re: .doc only spam

[mouss <us...@free.fr>]

John D. Hardin wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2006 hamann.w@t-online.de wrote:
>
>   
>> Other possible wording:
>> "you have sent us a message with an attachment that requires a
>> specific program to read (MS office). That program seems to cost
>> Euro xxx currently. Please understand that we are not going to
>> spend that"
>>     
>
> Nah.
>
> " ... Please understand that if we have to purchase this program
> solely to read your emails, we will bill you for the full cost of the
> program, plus the time required to install it. Such time will be
> billed at our regular rates (Euro xxx per hour, minimum 1 hour)."
>
>   
[option 1]
# latex foo
# cp foo.dvi urgent.doc
and send urgent.doc as a reply

[option 2]
# cp /netbsd /tmp/important_info.doc (or whatever kernel you want)
and send important_info.doc


I tried both (only while getting angry after receiving a 10 MO .doc file 
with only 2 pages - logos can get large), and at least you get some 
fun... word will still spend some time loading these! and sometimes, it 
attempts to "convert" them :-) So the guy at the other end generally 
replies "Sorry to bother you, but the file you sent me seems to have 
been trunctaed by our mail system. can you please resend it to my 
address at hotmail/aol/... "

Re: .doc only spam

["John D. Hardin" <jh...@impsec.org>]

On 9 Jul 2006 hamann.w@t-online.de wrote:

> Other possible wording:
> "you have sent us a message with an attachment that requires a
> specific program to read (MS office). That program seems to cost
> Euro xxx currently. Please understand that we are not going to
> spend that"

Nah.

" ... Please understand that if we have to purchase this program
solely to read your emails, we will bill you for the full cost of the
program, plus the time required to install it. Such time will be
billed at our regular rates (Euro xxx per hour, minimum 1 hour)."

{evil grin}

That would be fun, but I think using the worm/virus hazard would be
more effective.

--
 John Hardin KA7OHZ    ICQ#15735746    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhardin@impsec.org    FALaholic #11174    pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very
  good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of
  them.                                    -- Jeffrey Snyder
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 15 days until The 37th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon