Why not just flood their inbox?

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:23 pm

Quote:

Understood, at least to some extent. I can't see the lads keeping records quite that good, but I'll take the word of those with more experience.

I have done some baiting as a lad which can be loads of fun but more important for me is what I learnt from doing it, lads are very good with storing their records by using a variety of accounts, some are used for bombing, some scamming, some for their personnal lives and others for record storage, I do the same myself now to some extent and it isn't hard or complicated to do, simply forward the emails to another account, you can set your box to do it automatically, in less than a minute and with the search feature on most email providors, finding the info your after is very quick and easy

Quote:

As far as victims searching by email address, I can't imagine it happening very often. I never considered it, and tried it after seeing it mentioned here, with basically no results. However, searching a name used in the email, or searching a distinctive portion of a sentence gives excellent results. Scamomatic.com also has a search that is quite capable of detecting scam emails based on text content, as well as a database of emails.

The email address is the most common search people make when after details and it will give results more often than not, I have spent loads of time finding details of scammers for victims who need help to find evidence and while the other methods you mention are effective in many cases, the email address or variations of it are still the best, just out of curiosity, the email addresses you couldn't find details on, post them and I will see what I can dig up Wink

Quote:

I suppose the real problem is informing the potential victim about such resources before it is too late. And I still have a real hard time believing that anyone falls for these scams, though I know this is true.

Again, I wish it wasn't so but I rarely go a day without encountering another scam victim Crying or Very sad

Quote:

I really do appreciate the responses; I've completed one bait ($58,000 check plus a bank account sent to Alan), have two others running right now, and plan to continue.

This is great work and although you may not yet see it, that has caused a lot more pain to scammers than spamming lads ever could, keep up the good work Wink

Quote:

But I still think there must be a better way...

You know, I am sure there are better ways to deal with the scam problem, governments around the world realising how big a problem it is and providing more funds for public awareness programs, if governments could spend just a fraction of the overall amount of money that is scammed from their economies it would make a huge difference.

I have seen many people who have not been scammed as a result of the work we do at Scamwarners, many more we dont see, we are just a small group of volunteers who deprive ourselves of less important pastimes like sleep to help prevent scams, imagine what could be done with some real resources

Your plan to spam lads is noble in that you are thinking of how to be more effective, we need that to keep ahead of them, this time your idea has been dicussed earlier (many times in fact) and it doesn't work. your next idea may be a great one so dont be put off by this one.

@Minette,
Share your idea, I wont laugh at you, I promise Wink

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:46 pm

I too, at first, thought that SPAMing the lads was a good idea, till I read your responses. I was thinking though, what about not traditionally SPAMing them, per say, but, sending back 30 or 40 legitimate looking responses. This way, perhaps, the lad will focus on our response instead of going after a real victim.

Perhaps a tool then could drop that jump started bait over in the surplus letters nice, fresh and ready to be baited by our happy volunteers? I'm not as familiar as ya'll, with how the lads operate (I'm a newb as well). What would the lad do with 30 or 40 responses, pursuit them all? Or would he then select a few, promising looking responses, and focus on them? Would he then drop the extra responses and hopefully a real would be victim along with them?

I think that the idea has some merit. We could use their own strategy against them. They use numbers to their advantage, can we do the same? It would take some handy scripting, by someone that knows more about it then I, but, I think it could work.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

Mjwoody: That was my original intent, though I think some may have thought "flood" meant "spam". I agree it would do no good to actually spam the lads. My thought was to send them massive amounts of what appeared to be responses from potential victims, thus keeping them busy replying to thin air. I guess in this sense it would be a "mass bait".

Harpo

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:27 pm

That's what we call a mass bait ^ sometimes done to get at an especially nasty lad. If you do that with lots of lads it will cost you a lot of time too.

I'm still hoping for that one smart girl/guy that invents/writes the auto baiter that will keep the lad busy for 20 emails or so, with direct input of the baiter who will have to run it on his own computer so he can adjust or pick out the info needed to shut down an account-fake websites-phone numbers or what ever he is after. Even if it only works on one type of scam at the time it would be handy and save our time.

Now to make it a tad more interesting a local data base of that info that can be shared with other members to create a huge data base as help file for scamwarners.com and an addition of the NeXt files.

Hey a guy can dream,eh Laughing

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:55 pm

Ok then, I seems like a good idea. I think it could be accomplished with a *nix box, PHP and Sendmail. I can set them up, but I don't know how to script that well.

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:03 pm

Mjwoody and bill2,

^^^^^I've created chat bots which pick up on key words to send a reply, but have no idea how one could make something similar for emails.

My chat bot could hold a conversation easily for over 30 minutes....but was a lot of work.

That would be a great idea though! I will have to research this idea. The downfall would be creating 100+ new email addresses for the email bot.

Or maybe creating just a simple tool for b8rs to DL??

***************EDIT********************

Now this is interesting sofware based on the idea. (you would have to spoof your IP though)

http://www.deskshare.com/er.aspx

Details
Email Responder v2.41

With Email Responder you can:

* Automatically assign messages to a person or group based on their contents, using user-defined rules
* Reply to routine messages with no typing at all using templates
* Intelligently analyze all mail to extract customer and product information
* Automatically personalize replies using Smart Fields
* Have multiple users send and receive email from the same account, with instant updates
* Keep a complete history of all customer correspondence and contact details
* View all vital information in a single window
* Send email with signatures automatically inserted based on the email account used
* Use built-in reports to analyze email metrics
* Filter messages by date, status, product or service, or priority
* Use Email Responder with no training, in minutes!

***************EDIT********************

Master Baiter Joined: 04 Dec 2008 Posts: 143

You'd need to vary the text of the responses enough so the lad couldn't set up a simple filter.

I'm interested/curious/etc
This looks/sounds interesting/intriguing/too good to be true
Tell me more / [Please] send more details/information
And so on and so forth - the format would need to be changed so it doesn't start sounding familiar.

I can't do any computer coding but I'd be up for coming up with sufficient permutations that no two texts among thousands would look the same.

PM me if it goes ahead - though I think too many and he'd twig and decide to cut and close the account anyway. Perhaps it would be most effective done in conjunction with a lad who's been educated to use a new format?

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:22 pm

I guess I'll need to learn more coding, but I think that Sendmail may not be needed after all. Google, and Yahoo also I think, allow free SMTP access from your account. Perhaps we can incorporate this into our script.

I agree that the e-mails would have to be unique looking and refreshed or recycled often. Perhaps baiters could submit their most productive responces....

I'll check out SF or FM to see if there are any projects that could fit our needs. I may even be able to host it.

Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm

After thinking about it for a while, whole server may be overkill. I did find some open source software (in other words, its completely free of charge, no license to buy) that looks promising though.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/emailsender/

I'll test it out, and see if we can use it effectively, then write up a how-to here.

SO far its really sweet, it looks like it can be run from a thumb-drive, I'll test it further from home, it appears to be blocked here. But, it really looks good so far.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:00 am

@Harpo.

Which part of "It's a shit idea" don't you understand?

It's OK you making claims such as "victims don't Google" but you're talking from inexperience and preaching to people who deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. As someone has already said - if it was a good idea, we'd be doing it already. Aside from victims Googling, by keeping the lads on certain addresses, we're sometimes able to pass info onto the law. Spamming them and causing them to change address not only harms victims and baiters but could also destroy any legal investigation. It's a complete and utter no-no.

Quote:

My thought was to send them massive amounts of what appeared to be responses from potential victims, thus keeping them busy replying to thin air.I guess in this sense it would be a "mass bait".

This is still spamming. A mass bait involves interaction with the scammers over a number of emails. It does not involve flooding the box with one reply to his opening script and leaving it at that. Add to that the fact that if a lad gets a load of "I'm interested" emails in his box with no replies to his follow up script, he'll soon know the box is useless and change addresses.

Do not spam lad accounts. It causes more harm than good. Do you get it?

Put your efforts into something more useful that will hurt them.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

Mod edit - please don't quote the whole post of a post directly above, we can see it, it's just up there ^, a simple @Slightlyoutofit will suffice, quote removed - SP

@Slightlyoutofit:

Which part of my previous posts don't you understand? I enumerated my acceptance of the advice given here, and my intention to pursue other methods.

Interestingly enough, what is probably the most massive post ever on 419eater involves spamming. I refer to "Insulting Mass Bait - Part 5" (http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118139). This topic spans five threads since May 2004, including 128 pages and thousands of posts. One of the latest posts includes nearly 6000 scammer email addresses, posted for the specific purpose of spamming. It would seem that "do not spam lad accounts" is a directive not embraced by all members here.

I've also responded to your statement "...if it was a good idea, we'd be doing it already", but I'll reemphasize my position on this: There is such a thing as new ideas. Whatever you are doing now was new at some point, and I see no reason to discourage discussion about what might harm the lads business. As I've said - and demonstrated - I'm perfectly open to input. But I patently refuse the notion that the art of scambaiting can no longer advance, and I continue to view this forum as a place where such development can and should be discussed.

Thank you,
Harpo

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:48 pm

Thank-you for enlightening myself and the rest of the warners at scamwarners.com. We were all talking shite and you are totally correct.
We are of course, beholden to your wisdom and will alter our tactics accordingly.

For the record, I believe that spamming lads in mass insults is a total and utter waste of time. It achieves absolutely nothing except for a few choice words in a signature line. But then, as a few people here are doing it, it must be the correct tactic, right?

Quote:

I continue to view this forum as a place where such development can and should be discussed.

Discussed just as you did in your first half dozen posts where you ignored the advice of more experienced members until the penny finally dropped.

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Dec 2005 Posts: 3551

The mass insults are not used to fill lad accounts with spam. Each baiter who chooses to send out insults sends ONE insult to each lad. If you look at the thread and note the names of those who post, the number is not large. There are probably others who send out insults, but not every baiter does. I don't, but I have certainly borrowed phrases I learned from the angry replies.

The bottom line here is that we don't fill the boxes with spam or anything else. Smile

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:48 pm

@ Harpo:

If you want to flood something, invite all of ladland to call the cellphone of one lad. The flood of incoming calls disrupts his use of the phone and the callers are spending money.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:10 pm

^^ Or spam a phonelad.

They're the only lad whose addresses we actively encourage people to close down.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:23 pm

Wow, very encouraging. I love the community atmosphere... Wink

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:10 pm

Harpo wrote:

[color=red]But I patently refuse the notion that the art of scambaiting can no longer advance, and I continue to view this forum as a place where such development can and should be discussed.

I agree. There are angles and ideas we haven't yet thought of using or doing. There is nothing wrong with discussing good ideas. However, as it's been said, spamming and flooding email accounts is a waste of resources and not really frustrating to the lads. They just ignore or delete.

This thread seems to have stalled and is now repeating itself, while people are becoming understandably frustrated. What is the new idea we're discussing now? I've been trying to keep up and was looking for the abridged version. Smile

Baiting a lad isn't just about wasting his time, or being an inconvenient victim, it's also about causing frustration and stress to his scam business.

Master Baiter Joined: 04 Dec 2008 Posts: 143

@NN - I think the present idea is to figure out some way to automate mass baiting of multiple scammers. Not a simple proposition but could be a useful modality. I think what it needs to be effective are:

1) software to manage the mailing (MJwoody seems to be looking into this);
2) either software to parse scammer replies, or baiters to do the same and figure out which emails get which replies;
3) a whole lot of permutations of formats for sending to the scammers, so he doesn't twig when he gets identical replies.
In both 2 and 3 there are two parts - the linguistic side of things (working out what keywords the software should react to, and working out what its replies can be composed of) and I'm happy to be involved to whatever extent with that; and the coding side of things, which is beyond my expertise.

Master Baiter Joined: 04 Dec 2008 Posts: 143

Oh and I meant to reply @Murry Guru about my own idea - I'm too busy to put it into practice at the moment but I still like it (as long as there are no downsides).

Basically it's to send out to a whole bunch of lads an email saying "Are you a friend of [name of email box sending the mail]? He died recently of ovarian cancer and left his fortune to be divided among all his internet friends and I found your email address in his box. As his executor I will cover all expenses so you won't need to pay anything to claim your inheritance. Please get back to me with your name and how you knew [name]."

Essentially using their own tactic against them (so care would be needed not to give them a workable format) but requiring only time rather than money. So as things progress tell them:

* [name]'s funeral is tomorrow; as his close friend can you write a sentence or two for his memorial book?
* you just need to fill out this form for legal purposes;
* oh yes, and this form too;
* the bulk of the money is still tied up but I can send out an interim payment of $3000 via M7CN S3cure;
* some questions have been raised regarding proof of your friendship, can you send a photo of you and [name] together? (would need to seed them with a photo or two of him to photochop - perhaps in a newspaper obituary)
* I can now send $20,000 to (some inconvenient Money Gram location);
* a reporter's compiling a book about [name]; can you write 300 words about your friendship with him?

and so on and so forth until the barrister decides to fly with their million-odd dollars to [some inconvenient country].

Does this sound a) workable; b) not likely to somehow backfire?

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:12 am

I seem to remember someone inventing a trick where they had 5 gmail addresses linked together, each one gave a standard reply, or asked a typical question, but the "reply to" address was slightly different each time, and moved the lad on to the next gmail account and another standard reply, an so on.

The idea of this was that you could send one response to dozens of scammers, and let the lads wear themselves down, and hopefully get them off script before you even had to open an email.

What you are discussing above sounds to me like it could well make a more hi-tech/ interactive version of this method.

While I agree with Slightly (yeah, get over it.. sooner or later someone was bound too agree with you Wink

) that it's not worth swamping their accounts this way. I can see it potentially taking some of the drudgery out of dealing with large numbers of lads in the early stages.

OK it won't be perfect, and some will drop out, but hey-ho! those who make it through have earned some 1-on-1 time.. and the rest will carry on regardless.

Chat-bots (for anyone who's never encountered one,) are a real pain in the ass. Like that annoying little brother who takes one word out of anything you say, and goes off on a tangent about it. Completely avoiding the point you are trying to make.... frustrating as hell!

Master Baiter Joined: 04 Dec 2008 Posts: 143

Domain-specific chatbots - ie those which have been programmed with an area of expertise - can be a lot more convincing than general Eliza-like ones.

I'm trying to remember the name of the original insulter bot - that was quite convincing too, but wouldn't be so attractive to lads. Smile

But a bot designed to be perpetually confused could be convincing too, and as long as the money keeps being dangled it might keep the lads on the hook. (I'm using the ditsy-and-perpetually-confused trick for my current lotto-lad multi-bait.)

It'd be largely about seizing control of the bait.

I've been thinking about trying the chain-of-gmails. The main irritation is that it would send a reply as soon as it received the scammer's email, whereas I prefer to wait a day or two.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Posts: 19

@Slightlyoutofit: Thank you so much for the gracious welcome.

@Pachanga: Though variations of the idea are being discussed, this thread seems to upset some "veteran" members. If you are in agreement, please close or delete it.

Thank you,
Harpo

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:03 am

Well I can see how that would work, (and hopefully keep everyone happy.) You could potentially auto-bait literally hundreds of lads (at least for a little while,) all at once, thereby wasting a hell of a lot of ladtime, without spoiling the water for anyone else. Clearly they couldn't do anything as complex as set up a safari, or get a M0F built, and even the stupidest lad would get fed-up with it eventually, but 5mins here and 10 mins there over a large group all adds up.

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Dec 2005 Posts: 3551

@ Harpo: I am sending you a pm. Let's all put this subject to rest.

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: UK

As per a recent post where a lad voluntarily sent a baiter his password, and the baiter was advised not to enter the box as it might well be being monitored by law enforcement, the same also apples to flooding/spamming a box.

By that I mean, if any scammers email boxes are being monitored by by the authorities, the last thing they need is thousands of emails hitting those boxes and disrupting their work, I'm sure they have better things to do than having to sift through piles of emails looking for a victims information, they can't afford not to check every email in case they miss a victim or some vital piece of information.

But wait, I hear you cry, lads in Africa never get monitored or caught, well, for starters, they do, members here have had quite a few arrests, look for the shields in their sig lines, and whilst Africa is a common place for scam emails to come from, not all of them come from there, and for those scammers operating from the likes of the US, Canada and Europe, they are well within the laws grasp.

And it's not just the scammers themselves, it's all their knowing or unknowing mules who may also be being monitored, so again, flooding or spamming boxes just causes the likes of law enforcement more headaches, so please don't do it.

Harpo wrote:

I've also responded to your statement "...if it was a good idea, we'd be doing it already", but I'll reemphasize my position on this: There is such a thing as new ideas.

Yes, new ideas are great and welcomed, but it's not a new idea, it's been brought up before by new members on many occasions, the end result is usually the same, they are given advice about why it's not a good idea, then they get the hump because nobody agrees with them that it's a good idea, then the topic gets locked blah blah blah.

Why not just flood their inbox?	View next topic View previous topic