3 ms·

LinkedIn is maddening. If you make the mistake of signing up, it takes years to escape their spam and bs.

toast0 11mo ago
I got years of their spam without signing up. Only after several years did they add a way to opt out an email address without making an account.
- fc417fc802 11mo ago
  If they don't provide an easy opt-out link then why not just block the sender and move on? Unlike the less legal operations I wouldn't expect a legitimate business to rotate domains or otherwise attempt to evade blocks.
  - immibis 11mo ago
    Why block when you can report to Spamhaus?
    - fc417fc802 11mo ago
      I prefer to only report genuinely malicious behavior. As long as there's no active attempt at block evasion I figure reporting it is just increasing noise and generally making things worse for everyone. It's the active block evasion crowd that make any and every network communication protocol a pain in the ass to use at scale. It wasn't simpletons using a single static IP address that triggered such widespread adoption of Anubis overnight.
      - marcosdumay 11mo ago
        How is that not genuinely malicious behavior?
        fc417fc802 11mo ago
        Look I'm just trying to distinguish "active circumvention of blocks" from pretty much everything else. Because the former is what destroys the usefulness of protocols while the vast majority of other things can be trivially resolved by blocking the offending party. Including { corporate service } that I don't use sending me { unwanted thing }. If a bot that sends a fixed set of headers and is behind a single static IP is behaving poorly and slowing down your server you can block it and move on. Whereas when an abhorrently selfish operator with a client that actively hinders fingerprinting rapidly rotates through hundreds of thousands of IPs you end up with mass adoption of solutions like Anubis.
        immibis 11mo ago
        99.9% of spam is not active circumvention of blocks. It comes from so many sources you can't block them, but they are true different sources and not a block circumvention technique. That's why we decided to come down with the biggest hammer on every single source.
        fc417fc802 11mo ago
        That doesn't match my experience at all. If I disable filtering what I see is a slew of ephemeral domains. Without DMARC I'm sure they would instead be official looking and fake. > It comes from so many sources you can't block them, Nonsense. If it were really countless fixed sources then a centralized domain blacklist would be sufficient. The issue is that the sources - both domain and IP - are aggressively rotated and even spoofed whenever possible.
        immibis 10mo ago
        That's how it looks now, in a world of ubiquitous spam blockers. Originally, it was each company sending you a few pieces of spam from a legitimate address.

toast0 11mo ago

I got years of their spam without signing up. Only after several years did they add a way to opt out an email address without making an account.

fc417fc802 11mo ago
If they don't provide an easy opt-out link then why not just block the sender and move on? Unlike the less legal operations I wouldn't expect a legitimate business to rotate domains or otherwise attempt to evade blocks.
- immibis 11mo ago
  Why block when you can report to Spamhaus?
  - fc417fc802 11mo ago
    I prefer to only report genuinely malicious behavior. As long as there's no active attempt at block evasion I figure reporting it is just increasing noise and generally making things worse for everyone. It's the active block evasion crowd that make any and every network communication protocol a pain in the ass to use at scale. It wasn't simpletons using a single static IP address that triggered such widespread adoption of Anubis overnight.
    - marcosdumay 11mo ago
      How is that not genuinely malicious behavior?
      - fc417fc802 11mo ago
        Look I'm just trying to distinguish "active circumvention of blocks" from pretty much everything else. Because the former is what destroys the usefulness of protocols while the vast majority of other things can be trivially resolved by blocking the offending party. Including { corporate service } that I don't use sending me { unwanted thing }. If a bot that sends a fixed set of headers and is behind a single static IP is behaving poorly and slowing down your server you can block it and move on. Whereas when an abhorrently selfish operator with a client that actively hinders fingerprinting rapidly rotates through hundreds of thousands of IPs you end up with mass adoption of solutions like Anubis.
        immibis 11mo ago
        99.9% of spam is not active circumvention of blocks. It comes from so many sources you can't block them, but they are true different sources and not a block circumvention technique. That's why we decided to come down with the biggest hammer on every single source.
        fc417fc802 11mo ago
        That doesn't match my experience at all. If I disable filtering what I see is a slew of ephemeral domains. Without DMARC I'm sure they would instead be official looking and fake. > It comes from so many sources you can't block them, Nonsense. If it were really countless fixed sources then a centralized domain blacklist would be sufficient. The issue is that the sources - both domain and IP - are aggressively rotated and even spoofed whenever possible.
        immibis 10mo ago
        That's how it looks now, in a world of ubiquitous spam blockers. Originally, it was each company sending you a few pieces of spam from a legitimate address.