Slashdot Mirror

Folks, if you haven't discovered SpamAssassin yet, do yourself a HUGE favor and at least look into it. If you're not running a Linux box and are relegated to Windows, talk to your ISP about it. If you're running Mac OS X, I believe you should have no problem getting SpamAssassin to filter your mail, if you route it through a local MTA.

It took me about 30 minutes to get SpamAssassin integrated properly with qmail, vpopmail, sqwebmail and I've been happy ever since. I get maybe one spam a week now that isn't caught by the assassin and about 35-40 a day get routed into my Trash automagically.

SpamAssassin has a huge set of heuristics it uses to detect spam as well as some auxiliary tools that it can use to check global databases for common SPAM - if someone else has gotten it and is providing SPAM information to these databases, it saves everyone else from having to check it, basically.

Bottom line: check out SpamAssassin - its by far the best tool I've found in blocking spam, far better than simply blocking yahoo.com and hotmail.com addresses! Take some time, check it out - you'll be quite happy you did, I assure you! Its configurability is pretty much unmatched out there as well.

A year ago I opened a hotmail account for some reason I forget. Within an hour I received something like 12 spams. I had not sent anything to anybody.

I recommend SpamAssassin to anyone who can use it. I installed this on my Linux workstation and it typically catches 98% of the roughly 75 spams I get per day. It does occasionally catch a few listmails, but I could move filters for those ahead of the spamassassin filter and solve that.

So, use a real 10-guage shotgun on the spammer, fire it 20 times, and hope that at least 0.1% of the buckshot hits their vital organs for it to be a success??

I actually installed spamassassin last week and it's caught over 200 messages in the past 4 days. Very effective!

Until a recent /. thread, I didn't realize there was such a tool as Fetchmail. This makes it exceedingly easy to use SpamAssassin.

I thought that since I didn't own/administer the mail server for my address that I couldn't get spamassassin installed or even use it in any way. But if you use Fetchmail on your OWN box, it pops/sends from your pop account on the remote machine to your address on the local machine, where you can use all the spamassassin & procmail stuff you want.

I didn't think that I could ever get SpamAssassin working for me, but after getting fetchmail working and a few Perl module installs later, SpamAssassin is tagging those nasty spams for easy filtering. It's great

Somehow I doubt this. If Spam didn't work, why do I get a hundred pieces of it every morning? Someone is buying.

OK Taco... someone mentions this everytime you complain about spam, install Spamassassin and be done with it. No joke, over 5 spams a day to a spam maildir, where it sits for 2 days just in case it's legit, then promptly to /dev/null ... it even makes getting spams fun.

Hell, if you need help, fork over one of them slashdot.org email addresses and I'll help you for free. :P

SpamAssassin does wonders. After installing it on our mail servers I've dropped from about 150 to 200 spam messages a day to about 10, and I have yet to have someone tell me they sent me something that I never recieved.

SpamAssassin Rules!

If you want to feel frustrated, ignored, and almost powerless, try fighting spam...

... ineffectively. If you want to actually have an effect and contribute to the Internet community, then do something effective.

Shutting down spammers is a small part of being effective. You want to make a tiny effort to shut them down, because it will help a bit. It won't help much against the big spammers who use Chinese or Korean servers to send their spam, but it'll help a bit. But don't waste your time at it. Find some automated tool to send off the reports. I use Spamcop, because it's dead easy; I imagine lots of Spamcop complaints get ignored, but you need to put so little effort into them, that it's no big loss.

The big advantage of using Spamcop to complain is that it improves the Spamcop blacklist. Sites that originate spam are blacklisted when sufficient traffic from them over the last week is reported as spam. Other sites can use the Spamcop blacklist as an indicator that an email is coming from a recent spam source, and block it (or use this information in a scoring scheme to help decide whether to block).

You can also sign up with Spamcop for email filtering. I'd estimate that it catches about 95% of incoming spam, with a very low (0.01%, maybe) false positive rate. For me, this is sufficient: I get just 2 or 3 spams per week. Others may want more powerful filters.

There are other community efforts to build spam filters, such as Vipul's Razor and SpamAssassin.

Contribute to any of these, and you'll have a big effect on your own spam load. Publicize them, and you'll get more systems to incorporate them into their mail servers, making spam less of a problem on every system.

Spamassassin
Okay, so that's more like 6 words, but still it's great. A guy I work with turned me onto it and I love it. And adding a `spamassassin -r` in my procmailrc for known_spam gives me the feeling that I'm actually doing my part in preventing SPAM.

X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=23.7 required=7.0 tests=SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,NO_REAL_NAME,OPT_IN,CLICK_BE LOW,EMAIL_MARKETING,EXCUSE _3,BIG_FONT,CLICK_HERE_LINK,MAILTO_LINK,CTYPE_JUST _HTML,DATE_IN_FUTURE,RCVD_ IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID version=2.20

I used spambouncer before discovering spamassassin (www.spamassassin.org). Spambouncer requires rules, rules, rules to block all unwanted mail AND to not to block all wanted mail.
IMHO, spamassassin uses a much better system of built in rules to check for spam, including Vipul's Razor. It can easily be adjusted: give weigth to certain checks or set a higher/lower threshold for spam-marking. Spambouncer requires procmail rules which are much harder to setup.
Spamassassin made everything much easier; in the last couple of months, it blocked 1 mail which it shouldn't have and also didn't block 1 it should have.

Spam used to get me really mad and/or annoyed. I thought about the scammers out there, I thought about my wasted time, I thought about wasted resources, etc.

Recently, I've installed Spamassassin, and I've been running it for a few months.

Nowdays, spam doesn't bother me too much. Spamassassin tags nearly all of it. Deleted without much trouble or effort on my part. I still report the ones that get through the filter. I haven't had much of a problem with false positives either.

These days I'm thinking that passing more laws to stop spam isn't the answer. I'd rather we use technological solutions for now. If/when we finally all start using authenticated, encrypted e-mail, spam will cease to be a problem at all. In the mean time, a good filter aleviates the need for legislative solutions, in my opinion.

So shouldn't we be rushing to defend the ISPs from abusive use of the courts, not creating more court cases? And on the technical front, won't most users benefit from user-side solutions such as SpamAssassin?

I think it's pretty silly to imagine that the solution to spam will be through technology. It would be very hard to differentiate spam and legitimate mailing lists.

The point of redesigning the delivery system is to make that question irrelevant. For instance, some proposals try to add a concept of trust between mail servers. Under the current model, every mail server trusts every other mail server by default. Admins at sites will occasionally block mail from certain sites, or from all dialups, or from all dynamic IP addresses. That is a very crude form of a trust system. In the first case, the lack of trust is based on some evidence of abuse. In the latter two cases it isn't based on actual abuse so much as a history of abuse. Some have proposed more precise trust mechanisms that would be used between mail servers (using signatures, etc. for the identification). The default case could either be trust or no trust (depending on whether the solution uses whitelists or blacklists)... the point is that abuse from a site that isn't dealt with would cost you the status of a trusted server. That essentially moves you away from the whole per-message differentiation problem. The end user, after all, can tell the difference between spam and legitimate mailing lists. The devil in the details in this case is who maintains the lists and what sort of mechanism is involved in getting on and off them. Presumably there would be many (much like the choice you have in NoCeM lists for Usenet) and, if so, that might make the question less critical.

And of course a legal solution can work...to the extent that other laws work and are enforceable. Many forms of mail fraud are illegal, but that doesn't mean you won't get mail scams and such sent to you. However it severely reduces the amount that you receive and also determines a path for you or the goverment to prosecute offenders.

Unfortunately, the legal approach has it's own pitfalls. For one thing, there is a big question of jurisdiction. We sort of wink at the question when it is used to go after spammers because we don't like spam, but do we really want to establish the idea that a local gov't can impose it's particular laws and mores on the net? There are also technical problems. It's easy to identify the relay that the spam was sent through. If they provide contact information in the spam (kind of useless without it, unless it's one of those advocacy spams) you have that, as well. But that, in just about every case, doesn't identify an individual. Let's say they used a throwaway Yahoo! account. Well, we just read that Yahoo! doesn't have any way of identifying who the account holder is. As for the relay, I don't know how common my case is, but most of the spam I get is relayed from foreign countries.

So does the actual payoff of a legislative solution in terms of spam reduction make up for the precedence it establishes for local gov'ts to legislate net activities? FWIW, I get more spam than ever now (although, thanks to SpamAssassin, I don't see as much of it as I used to).

I have on old hotmail account that gets 100+ pieces of spam a day, and I no longer recieve any personal email to that account. What I've done, is I use Gotmail to download all the email, then pipe it to Razor. I do this every day from a cron job. If every slashdot user set up a hotmail account with a phony name, and ALLOWED the spam to come by not changing thier preferences, this would be a pretty good way to keep Razor, or whatever other spam reporting service you are using current.

I say bring em' on! I'm happy to waste MS's bandwith, and glad to help keep the spam databases current, so those of us running Spamassassin can keep our real email accounts clean.

My sugguestion only requires a valid from or reply-to address, and I did intend to use some sort of capatcha, but not an image based one. A text based capatcha would be easy, i.e. "parrots, bluejays, robins and sparrows are all what? (birds)" Additionaly once someone correctly responds to the capatcha they would be added to a whitelist. Optionaly a system like spam assassin could be used to decide in an email is "spammy" enough to bother requiring a capatcha response.

It's not perfect, but Spamassassin is pretty damn close.

Can someone please present a way to overhaul the email system so that it works the way it was intended?

at work i set up mailscanner, which uses sophos anti-virus engine, and also spamassassin to tag all the spam. overall, very nice setup. ohh, i use sendmail for the transport.

No, I'm not trolling. I'm quite serious. I think that RBL's are not as effective at their job of blocking spam as TMDA and spamassassin. If you think that spamassassin is just an rbl, then you've misunderstood it. If you think TMDA's blacklist makes it an rbl, then you've misunderstood it.

Spamassassin is an email heuristic system that takes ordb (and other rbl's) under advisement. But it is not the final say. It also uses vipul's razor as an advisor, but again it's not the final say. Spamassassin has hundreds of different tests that it performs to determine whether or not an email is a spam. Only a few of which are rbl based tests.

TMDA is a system that doesn't depend on any RBL (Realtime Blackhole List). And contrary to your understanding, it's primary mechanism is NOT a blacklist, it's a whitelist. It's a completely different technology than an RBL. Even if you do use it with a blacklist, it's based on email addresses not IP addresses. So if you spam me, and I blacklist you, your brother on the same email server can still send me email.

I stand by my original claim. RBL's are antiquated technology in comparison to TMDA and spamassassin. They paint too broad of a brush stroke, blocking many people who you want to receive email from, while failing to block many others who you don't want to receive email from.

I agree that you're in a difficult situation, but nothing else works.

I disagree with this assessment. There are at least two other things that work, and IMHO work better. The first is spamassassin, and the second is TMDA. I use both of these in series. And I've not received a single spam in my inbox since January (when I started using them). I used to get 20-30 per day. Now I'm down to zero.

I don't know how well SPEWS works. But I've used other RBL type systems and they always, at some point or another failed, and could sometimes fail big - where I suddenly start getting hundreds of spam from a non-listed IP. The two systems above can fail, but on a single instance, single email at a time. When they fail, they fail small.

IMHO, SPEWS, RBL, and any other IP based list systems are antiquated technology in comparison to spamassassin and TMDA. But YMMV.

$.02

Get this: name me 10 subject that would get 99% approval among the population? .... but SPAM? come on... if it's not 99% it's going to be 99.9%.

It all depends on how you ask your questions. Maybe if you ask "should something be done?" you _might_ get 99%. If you include a phrase such as "potentially risking free speech rights for some" or "potentially hindering legitimate commercial email", I doubt you'll get 99% !

Of course, the age-old debate of opt-in vs opt-out comes up somewhere in this whole debate. 99% agreement would be nice, but it just ain't gonna happen. Of course, what percentage of reasonable thinkers do you suppose would agree with this next quoted section (note the boldface phrase):

Why so much tolerance? why not blocking every higher class where the biggest spam machines comes from? the hell with the valid users; if they are cutted out, they will do something other than reading about it and sitting there, switch ISP or if it's another country with only one wire well they will do pressure to the higher instances to get their connection back. My way might be drastic, but I am FED UP with it, I've been waiting for 3 years for this problem to get solved and it's just getting worse.

Amazing.

Despite your lack of reasonable perspective, spam really is becoming a problem and there's already been a number of state laws passed, and some failed attempts at (US) nationwide law. When it comes to making public policy, it's not a simple matter, and fortunately lawmakers don't live in such a simple ("hell with the valid users") world.

But there is something that can be done about the problem right now. Use the SpamAssassin Filter. I do. It works really well, and you can adjust the settings and set your threshold as high or low as you like. I personally enable the RBL and Rozor tests and set my threshold fairly high, so there's virtually no chance of losing any valid emails, yet almost all spam is filtered to a separate inbox (via procmail in my setup). Maybe you'll choose a really low threshold... the hell with the valid users.

You should also bounce them into Vipul's Razor so the hash of the body can be used against future spam via the VR client and SpamAssassin.

For the last week I've been seeding the net with bogus addresses that all pump into the Razor. Its quite entertaining making newsgroup posts and web pages that you know are like sugar-candy for the spammer email harvesters.

I'm one of the SpamAssassin developers and I find their technique odd.

Wouldn't this have a horrendously high false positive ratio for things like mailing lists?

Anyway, tell them to use SpamAssassin - it kicks ass. And I'm not biased, honest ;-)

SpamAssassin

I'm not involved with this group, but from what I hear of other ISPs implementing this, it works well. It allows you to set headers based on it's own message rating system, sends checksums of messages that it thinks are spam to a clearing house (DCC), and uses checksums that match 'mass' email that have been rated as spam to mark messages that have been sent to a lot of people. This lets the user filter the garbage to a folder in their MUA if they want. It can also delete them server side.

Someone that uses this please correct me if I'm wrong.

I reached the same idea independently about six months back, but instead of using my name I filtered out anything that didn't have my email address in the To: field, based on the assumption that most spammers use Bcc: lists or other tricks. It worked great.

I've since installed SpamAssassin to deal with the occassional stuff that goes directly to my email address, but as a low-tech method, simply filtering out mail not directly addressed to you works amazingly well.

- lack of decent free porn (only 12 yo boys can come in 8 seconds)

The hun

- grotesque and prolific advertising including massive fucking banner and pop up ads

Lynx

- spam, in all it's mutations

- FLASH

Lynx

- JavaScript

Lynx

- Abuse of Registration practices (forced to register for everything, even WAITING IN LINE hint hint FILEPLANET)

can't help u there

Seems to me you got it wrong. Perl makes great attempts to stop spam. :-)

I use it on my systems on both my home and live boxes, and I have it set both the X-Message-Flag header as well as the normal X-Spam-Flag: YES that spamassassin uses; so that the ones who use Micro$oft's Outlook/OE can filter their spam by flags.

Post your email address to a usenet group then tell me the same story.
Fuck I get like 20 emails [from the same ISP in korea] a day. About buy some shitty sweaters and what have not.

Drifting off-topic a bit, but...

Get thee to SpamAssassin right now. Set up fetchmail to grab your email from yahoo/hotmail/etc, and deliver it through SpamAssassin -- not only does it kill all my spam, it also stops a bunch of arguably legitimate crap that's more trouble to unsubscribe from than to filter.

That's what I do anyways... Not sure if I want to cough up the money for both my and my wife's yahoo email address, especially when all I ever do is retrieve from their pop server. Doesn't help that the great mediaone->attbi conversion just occurred (which is what led me to setup the yahoo addresses in the first place). Ack, I just want a nice PERMANENT (and cheap!) email address.

Great idea ...
setting up a simple mailserver/mailproxy , they could use SpamAssassins spamproxyd ;-)

That way they could also filter out any spam

We had previously tried a number of anti-spam solutions, including combinations of RBL, ORBS, locally-maintained blacklists and lots of Sendmail hacks.

We had very little luck until November, when we implemented Spam Assassin on all of our mailboxes. After turning on Spam Assassin, the SPAM seemed to just go away. In the first day alone, we caught over 300 pieces of SPAM with ZERO false-positives with less than 10 pieces of junk making it through to the end user's mailbox. The program is, simply put, amazing.

It's multi-faceted approach works very well. It uses a combination of simple logical string checking, in addition to things like distributed databases like RBL and Razor.

The program can also place SPAM's in a dedicated mailbox file so you can see what got rejected. Each piece of rejected mail contains a report that includes the reasons that contributed to the rejection. Each reason has a weighted value that contributes to the final "good" or "bad" disposition. All of this is highly customizeable, but it does work very well out of the box without any tinkering.

I highly recommend this program. Take the time to sit down and install it on your mail server.

It uses a weighted score that derives it's values from a variety of sources including Razor and various Black Hole Lists.

The type of heuristics are along the lines of:

SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ----------------------
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content analysis details: (12.24 hits, 5 required)
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) From: contains numbers mixed in with letters
SPAM: Hit! (1.2 points) From: does not include a real name
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) 'Message-Id' was added by a relay (2)
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) Subject contains lots of white space
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) BODY: List removal information
SPAM: Hit! (1.56 points) Contains phrases frequently found in spam
SPAM: [score: 26, hits: accept credit, credit cards,]
SPAM: [fill out, for your, more information, our]
SPAM: [company, phone number, receive further, remove]
SPAM: [the, reply this, subject line, thank you, the]
SPAM: [subject, this email, wish receive, word remove,]
SPAM: [you for, you like, you wish, your]
SPAM: [email]
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) spam-phrase score is over 20
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) Received via a relay in inputs.orbz.org
SPAM: [RBL check: found 14.54.162.63.inputs.orbz.org.]
SPAM: Hit! (2 points) Received via a relay in relays.osirusoft.com
SPAM: [RBL check: found 6.223.155.212.relays.osirusoft.com., type: 127.0.0.9]
SPAM: Hit! (1.48 points) Subject contains a unique ID number
SPAM:
SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results ---------------------

If I initiate an email conversation with a human being, I prefer to give an address that will keep working. So I use persistent addresses that I cycle about once a year. I'm careful not to use them on mailing lists or netnews. They still get a little spam, but it's not that bad.

With TMDA you have a number of options.

1. The easiest would be to put all of the known email addresses that you know for that person into your whitelist. Then you simply communicate with them like TMDA isn't there.
2. You could also set up your email so that you automatically generated a new "dated" address for each response that you send. You can also change the default timeout for each address so that it's longer than 5days. You could change it to be 1year if you like.
3. The other thing that you could do is to assign that particular user a "sender" address. Unfortunately that address will only work if they send their email from the same address all the time.
4. You could assign this user a "keyword" address that they would be able to use from anywhere. This also means that anyone can use that address, which means that if it got onto a spam list, you'd get mail into your mailbox. On the other hand, if you chose unique enough keywords, you'd be able to track who gave out your email address to a spam list, and then revoke that email address.

Filtering on sender address is rude too.

Of course this is susceptible to error, either false negatives which cause spam to end up in your mailbox, or false positives which cause legit email to end up in your spambox or deleted. I use spamassassin. I did not find any false positives, but about 2% false negatives. So I implemented TMDA to handle all email that falls through spamassassin. So far, it's kept my mailbox pretty spamfree.

Of course, your right that all of this requires that legitimate people who want to talk to me may require an additional step. What I've found is that most people who do this are happy to get confirmation back that I exist and that there email really is getting to me. YMMV.

Good luck.

One thing you should consider for your antispam filter is spamassassin I recently set it up on a couple of mailboxes via. procmail, but it also sports a site wide daemon.

After a little bit of tweaking I know use it to check for matching mails in the razor spam archive, against ordb.org and it's own check that sees if it matches usual spam criteria like claiming you can be removed from the list, claiming that the mail isn't spam or is in accordance with some US law etc - untill now it has cought every piece of spam I recieved (around 5-10 a day) and I've had no false positives yet.

Try it out - it's really great :)

Have you considered spamassassin? I've been trying it recently and it seems to work very well.

Basically, it's a mail filter which will add a flag to mail that seems to be spam (based on a complicated scoring system, read more about it on their website). I've had good success so far. The only real problem is that it's a little over-sensitive to lists currently. The auto-whitelist feature that's currently in CVS should really help with this.

If you get inundated with spam, I suggest trying it out.

Does SpamAssassin. . . allow you to define your own rules? I haven't figured out how yet, but I haven't looked very hard either.

Yes it does. In $HOME/.spamassassin/user_prefs you can define rules. Here's an example of a rule that I've added to filter ICQ requests as spam:

header ICQ_REQUEST Subject =~ /^Please let me add you to my ICQ Contact List$/
describe ICQ_REQUEST Subject contains request for ICQ
score ICQ_REQUEST 10.00

Check here for instructions on how to specify rules.

the tests read the description of test, they are very funny.

I recently installed SpamAssassin to filter my mail and throw suspected spam into a separate mail folder. I didn't want to filter out spam completely because I just started using SpamAsassin and wanted to make sure my setup wasn't going to give me too many false positives.
BTW It hasn't yet!

I just recieved the following SPAM I'm posting here for your pleasure.

Spam, about anti-spam software, tagged as spam by SpamAssassin. I love it!

From gdert34@yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 03:16:24 2002
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:28:47 -0500
From: gdert34@yahoo.com
To: 69@innocent.com
Subject: *****SPAM***** No More Junk Mail!

SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content analysis details: (14.35 hits, 5 required)
SPAM: Hit! (1.2 points) From: does not include a real name
SPAM: Hit! (1.85 points) From: ends in numbers
SPAM: Hit! (0.5 points) Subject has an exclamation mark
SPAM: Hit! (1.63 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
SPAM: Hit! (0.6 points) BODY: Contains a line >=199 characters long
SPAM: Hit! (1.34 points) BODY: URL of page called "remove"
SPAM: Hit! (1.2 points) BODY: HTML mail with non-white background
SPAM: Hit! (1.83 points) Contains phrases frequently found in spam
SPAM: [score: 18, hits: another email, click here,]
SPAM: [email from, here learn, never receive, one our,]
SPAM: [receive another, removed from, that you, this]
SPAM: [email, you not, your mail]
SPAM: Hit! (0.7 points) Forged yahoo.com 'Received:' header found
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) Received via a relay in inputs.orbz.org
SPAM: [RBL check: found 129.87.207.216.inputs.orbz.org.]
SPAM: Hit! (2 points) Received via a relay in relays.osirusoft.com
SPAM: [RBL check: found 145.48.4.4.relays.osirusoft.com.]
SPAM: Hit! (0.5 points) Received via a relay in ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org
SPAM: [RBL check: found 129.87.207.216.ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org., type: 127.0.0.6]
SPAM:
SPAM: End of SpamAssassin results

BRAND NEW ANTI-SPAM TECHNOLOGY!

Detect & eliminate spam BEFORE it gets to your mail client! Tired of the hundreds of unsolicited commercial email (UCE) infiltrating you mailbox everyday? Now you can do something about it! Seek and Destroy all unwanted junk e-mail at the click of a button, BEFORE it reaches your mailbox!

FEATURES:

Connects to any pop3 server! Eliminates spam BEFORE it reaches your mailbox!
Unlimited Account capability! Add as many e-mail accounts as you desire
User friendly, graphic interface makes spamscanner very easy to use
Scan manually, or let the scanner scan automatically at an auto time interval

GO HERE TO LEARN MORE
http://freehost.0o0o0o0oo0o0o0o0o0o.org/sscanner /i ndex.html?1-cyb

Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this contaminant free message
We do concede, a signicant number of electrons may have been inconvenienced.

This email was sent to you on behalf of the the coalition for responsible internet marketing. You are receiving this email because you purchased a product from us in the past, or downloaded software from one of our websites and agreed to allow us to send you offers. If you wished to be removed from this mailing, please utilize our automated removal system here. If you request to be removed, we guarantee that you will never receive another email from us, but ONLY through the use of this product can you ensure that you do not receive ANY commercial emails

http://freehost.0o0o0o0oo0o0o0o0o0o.org/remove.htm l