E-mail Bombs Might Become More Common Now

[felemur]

https://www.grahamcluley.com/can-no-lon ... mailchimp/

Seems that confirming a request to subscribe to e-mail newsletters, etc. is going to become less common, making you more vulnerable to e-mail bombings.

[Portreve]

So, first off, I never publicly expose my email address. Your have to be a retard to do that.

Secondly, my email provider is actually very good about catching onto things.

Third, I do what I can to unsubscribe to things in a timely manner.

[Pierre]

it never ceases to amaze ME about the number of Holes in that Other Popular Operating System

you could dive a truck through some of those larger exploits

and whilst, this particular exploit could be applied to Any Operating System,
- it's end-goal is to place Malware onto That Other Popular Operating System.

and that can be a real PiTA to remove - - Time and Time Again . . .

[catweazel]

it never ceases to amaze ME about the number of Holes in that Other Popular Operating System

you could dive a truck through some of those larger exploits

and whilst, this particular exploit could be applied to Any Operating System,
- it's end-goal is to place Malware onto That Other Popular Operating System.

and that can be a real PiTA to remove - - Time and Time Again . . .

Did you reply to a post that nobody else can see?

[lexon]

I belong to a number of forums. It does amaze me that once in a while someone post their full email address in the body of the message even though only those signed in can see their address normally. I and others tell them this is a no, no. Some get it. Common sense is not common.
Over the years I find google mail is much better than yahoo mail for spam and hacker emails.
And, passwords are another issue. lol

L

[felemur]

If you want to be contacted, there is an easy way without posting your e-mail if you own a website: Use a "Contact" script on a .php page. Your website host will send the contact info filled by the website viewer to an e-mail of your choice, and the person filling the form has no idea what your e-mail is.

Having made the mistake of posting my e-mail on my websites in the past, I can agree totally that gmail is by far the best at filtering. Yahoo is junk (IMO).

[austin.texas]

If you want to be contacted, there is an easy way without posting your e-mail if you own a website:

If you own a website, you can do what I have always done - create a hundred "throw-away" email addresses.
For example, if I want to subscribe to a newsletter, I will create an email address such as, "danielmorgan@mywebsite.com". (Daniel Morgan is actually a historical figure from 1776.)
All mail to that address will be automatically forwarded to my gmail account. If I start getting spam to that address, I just delete it...

[felemur]

Good idea, though my way works too.

[NChewie]

If you own a website, you can do what I have always done - create a hundred "throw-away" email addresses.

All mail to that address will be automatically forwarded to my gmail account. If I start getting spam to that address, I just delete it...

That is very effective. I do it on a lesser scale: I have a ymail account for giving out to the public and (only) if I really need to see more than a couple of messages from an end user, I can filter those messages and forward them to my gmail.
Usually what goes to ymail just stays on ymail... and if too much **** arrives, I just ignore it.

NB this is for non-secure day to day information... I have a different (non-gmail) account for work and offer full pgp to anybody who cares to use it!.

[wizzybang]

So, first off, I never publicly expose my email address. Your have to be a retard to do that.

Just love this, the word retard is one of my favourite - it conveys the complete dissatisfaction of ones lack of intelligence perfectly in a mere second.

[catweazel]

So, first off, I never publicly expose my email address. Your have to be a retard to do that.

Just love this, the word retard is one of my favourite - it conveys the complete dissatisfaction of ones lack of intelligence perfectly in a mere second.

Presumably, neither of you have children with intellectual disabilities.

[Portreve]

Presumably, neither of you have children with intellectual disabilities.

If I've caused legitimate offense, I apologize.

What I have come to realize of late, which is why I qualified my intended-to-be-serious apology with the word "legitimate", is I've found people at this point are often less-than-sincere in what they say in response to something I've said. Honestly, at this point, I no longer can tell the difference.

The term "retard" in my view holds two distinct qualities. The first is that it is utterly non-specific (and therefore very generalizing) and the second, which is the sense in which I meant it, is that it is intended as an insult towards whomever it is specifically being used. The only "slight" qualification I would like to add is that we now regularly use pretty extreme and vulgar terms in our daily discourse, and terms like "gay" and "retard" and "ass" and so forth have become accepted as being incredibly pedestrian in nature, which is also an element I assumed in my own usage.

[wizzybang]

So, first off, I never publicly expose my email address. Your have to be a retard to do that.

Just love this, the word retard is one of my favourite - it conveys the complete dissatisfaction of ones lack of intelligence perfectly in a mere second.

Presumably, neither of you have children with intellectual disabilities.

Hi Catweazel and anyone else viewing.

Apologies to have caused any offence. Certainly didn't mean too and again sorry to have caused any offence.

Sam

[catweazel]

The term "retard" in my view holds two distinct qualities. The first is that it is utterly non-specific (and therefore very generalizing)

The more correct phrasing of 'generalizing' in this context is dehumanizing.

Dehumanize : verb
Deprive of positive human qualities.

Dehumanizing is what people do to allow themselves to rationalise their insults of other human beings as "incredibly pedestrian in nature" 'therefore it's harmless'. However dehumanizing a person or a whole group of people isn't harmless; in the latter case, when dehumanizing is condoned or encouraged by governments or large groups of people, it leads to wars, pogroms and ethnic cleansing. So, no matter what way you slice and dice the use of the term, it isn't harmless.

I didn't take offence, btw. I never take offence, my hide being thicker than the skin on a rhino's backside, so no apology to me is necessary or required. That said, you cannot guarantee that someone will not take offence, especially someone who has a family member with an intellectual disability. There are things that should not be said and this is one of them.