Post by thread:[OT]: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:52 +0100, "Michael Watterson" <.....mikeKILLspam@spam@radioway.org> wrote: > On **/**/*** **:**, **** ****** via LinkedIn wrote: > > > > ***** ***** requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn: > > > > > I have seen this a number of times. Presumably a mistake. > > Why does the PIC List let them through as the "from:" is "someone > <memberKILLspamlinkedin.com>" ? Because Kari Laine is a subscribed member of the Piclist and it's a fake LinkedIn invitation sent from Kari Laine's malware-ridden computer. Don't click on the link. Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html

On 11/07/2011 05:50, Bob Blick wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:52 +0100, "Michael Watterson"<.....mikeKILLspam.....radioway.org> > wrote: >> Why does the PIC List let them through as the "from:" is "someone >> <EraseMEmemberspam_OUTTakeThisOuTlinkedin.com>" ? > > Because Kari Laine is a subscribed member of the Piclist and it's a fake > LinkedIn invitation sent from Kari Laine's malware-ridden computer. Doesn't at all look that way to me. Received headers are fine, it also has a DomainKeys signature. It seems to be an official email sent from LinkedIn because someone has used the "look through my addressbook and invite all my friends" feature. Unsolicited and perhaps annoying, but not fake. Michael's question is quite sensible, it isn't from the address that the individual is subscribed with, so why does Mailman let it through? Even if my computer were riddled with nasties, I shouldn't be able to send to the piclist from random email addresses. Davi

FWIW - last time I looked at this the requester seemed to be a young woman studying electrical engineering in Africa. She seemed to be a genuine person* as far as I could judge from internet information, so it may be an attempt to garner EE contacts via Linkedin. (* As opposed to the persistent 'young woman' refugee in ?Monrovia who sent a very heart rending appeal and a very pleasant (family friendly) photo of herself. "She" made the mistake of using a watermarked photo. When she next contacted me I sent "her" several other of her photos back, taken from the website where 'she" had got the original photo. Sadly, I have not received any correspondence from 'her' since :-).

On 7/10/2011 9:50 PM, Bob Blick wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:52 +0100, "Michael Watterson"<mikespam_OUTradioway.org> > wrote: >> On **/**/*** **:**, **** ****** via LinkedIn wrote: >>> ***** ***** requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn: >>> >>> >> I have seen this a number of times. Presumably a mistake. >> >> Why does the PIC List let them through as the "from:" is "someone >> <@spam@memberKILLspamlinkedin.com>" ? > Because Kari Laine is a subscribed member of the Piclist and it's a fake > LinkedIn invitation sent from Kari Laine's malware-ridden computer. > > Don't click on the link. > > Bob > A few months ago, I became alarmed at how social sites seemed to encroach on privacy. I have closed all "my" such sites, and no longer participate. --Bob

> A few months ago, I became alarmed at how social sites seemed to > encroach on privacy. > I have closed all "my" such sites, and no longer participate. A valid choice, out of the several valid choices available. The following is independent of "security of data on the system" issues: - Such sites can be very well "locked down" so that you can restrict how much unknown-users see. Even Facebook, at its most restricted level, is annoyingly opaque to outsiders. A maximum privacy settings Facebook site does not allow a non approved person even to send messages to the owner, even though their Facebook ID is known. ie it is like an email system that rejects messages as of right if the sender is not preapproved. The only access method available is to send a "friend request". 'Friend request' senders can be blocked individually or ignored completely. - A more open Facebook system can use closed & secret user groups to allow fully private in-group communications. - A good solution to most concerns is to not place information of interest on the site. One can also use legally any name at all as your visible 'persona'. I operate a number of Facebook pages for different uses. My publically visible page is identifiably mine but the name is human interpretable as me but probably not to search engines. I run any filters etc fully open in most cases but don't place information on the page which I don't want shared abroad. I also operate several private and secret groups on the same page and can communicate and send files without the groupings, members, conversations or files being visible to anyone outside the group. I assume as of right that I can't guarantee that any of the above can be relied on. Russel

I'm not a member of any either, but, as I understand the "Default" settings tend toward be "Open", and non-knowledgeable users as a result will be vulnerable. A thought: Follow the money, the majority of these "Services", are very profitable. They are not getting rich from user fees, but by selling information. What is the information being sold?? On 7/11/2011 7:10 AM, RussellMc wrote: >> A few months ago, I became alarmed at how social sites seemed to >> encroach on privacy. >>

On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 15:20 +1200, RussellMc wrote: > > I subscribed their bot to the Piclist, but put it under moderation and > > set the account to "nomail", so they won't be able to send or receive > > messages. > > > Well done, I hope :-). I also added the bot address to the automatically declined section. It is VERY odd they were coming through though? TTYL