I gave up doing that after the Venetian hotel in Vegas accused me of hacking their systems when I *reported* email database leakage... "The best defense is a good offense" - as long as you've got the right target in your sights. -Adam
On April 26, 2015 12:13:25 AM CDT, Trevor Cordes trevor@tecnopolis.ca wrote:
On 2015-04-25 Bradford C. Vokey wrote:
Trevor Cordes (and myself) use vendor specific email addresses when we sign up for services (it's easy when you control your own domain).
Yes, it's shocking the number of big companies that leak my email:
xerox primus hydro viewsonic seagate ...
there's dozens, at least.
Also, I've found those little paper-based "enter to win" boxes at local food joints / stores are all just big lying spam traps. I think they are just phishing scams but in the physical world. Sometimes when I have nothing better to do I'll enter those (with a unique email address) and within months I get hundreds of spams to that address, and AFAIK no one ever wins everything. I guess I fell for a "brick & mortar" scam; were it a cyber scam I'd never fall for it. Luckily I can just /dev/null that one-off address. "Woodlands" is the worst: they claim to give away a nice looking oil painting each month. All they give away is spam. Since this is in the "real world" and in Canada, why aren't the cops on their case? I mean, someone has to pick up the little boxes! Someone has to get consent from the retail establishment.
So how (and when) did Manitoba Hydro get their email accounts list hacked?
If so, what else got hacked? Our per-authorized Debit information?!?
Ha, ya. One would hope they'd be in separate DBs!
If not, then did they actually sell their email accounts lists to spam lists?
That I *seriously* doubt. They'd get in big doodoo for that. Now, did a single employee steal the list and sell it? Maybe... More likely they were compromised somehow.
...P.S. If anyone wants to meet some desperate Russian chick feel free to believe in the spam...
Doh! By including the spam in your posting you a) got your email put in my possible-spam-(low) folder, and b) present me with the dilemma of whether to mark the entire email as spam or not-spam :-) I know Bayes will most likely "do the right thing" but I can't see anything good about giving "Russian chick" a less-spammy Bayesian weighting. Hmm, I guess I will have to mark it as not-spam, as I don't yet have a maildir folder called: "keep these emails, they look spammy but are not, so don't train on them". That seems just one step too far down the road to insanity.
;-) _______________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable