Prosecuting A Spam Artist
ronmon writes: "DSLReports has discovered evidence of a creative Spammer / Data Miner who has managed to glean email addresses from their member's information pages. Apparently someone has gotten around to writing a script that decodes obfuscated addresses like imasobATspam_centralDOTcom, which was only a matter of time. Server logs show well over half a million requests from several IPs in a specific block and they have been advised that they are in a good postion to prosecute. They're asking for legal help, so any of you good hearted lawyers out there looking to boost your karma, here's your chance :)"
I'm of the opinion that there's only really one proper way to do this: an image generator. The site should keep a database of emails, together with a random ID. Then, whenever an email needs to be displayed on a page, you insert an image tag that looks like, say/> or whatever. This script looks up the email address in its database, then draws it. It then applies some noise and distorts it so that the email is more or less readable, but you'll have a hell of a job trying to automatically read these emails. Dunno, anyone think this will work?
I actively avoid supporting marketers who annoy me, and I urge you to do the same. If a company is advertising in a magazine I like, in a banner ad on a web page I like, or on a TV show I like, they're starting out with an even trade. A little support for my interests in exchange for a little bit of my attention.
If they spam, throw junk mail at me, pop up annoying windows all over my desktop, stick business cards or flyers on my windshield or otherwise inconvenience me, I ensure that I never ever support them. I've stopped dealing with companies I previously liked because they started engaging in these practices.
Spamming is essentially stealing. I don't know why the hell I'd want to support someone whose first action was to take from me without giving anything in return.
It's already had an effect. The kinds of places that spam are the kinds of places that don't give a fuck about anything but growing the business. By avoiding spammers, I'm increasing the probability that I'm dealing with a company that has some measure of a concern about the consumer.
The rest will sort itself out. The worse spam gets, the more likely it is to get legislated into a black hole, or the more likely it is that enough ISPs will start deploying cooperative spam circumvention devices to make it effective.
It'll get there, through law or common sense. In this day and age, the problem just has to become expensive to big business first.
I do the same, with twist. I actively tell them I stop doing business with them. It tends to surprise the fuck out of them that somebody actually is not only not interested in their "great business opportunity" but enough so to avoid them. If one person does that, they usually think "lunatic" and just go on. If several people tell them, they either get a clue, or are out of business a few years later...
-John
I've resisted the urge to follow the link in a spam if the link looks like it might be interesting.
The definition of "spam", at least in my book, is "Unsolicited Commercial Email".. for the most part, anyway. There's non-commercial spam too. The whole concept being that it's UNSOLICITED. I get tons of mailings (electronic and dead-tree versions) from organizations whose products I have purchased. I don't consider this spam, because by purchasing their product, I have elected to become part of their "previous customer" list. If I have a choice, however, I ALWAYS elect not to have my contact information sent to any outside parties, and I won't knowingly do business with any organizations who do this without my knowledge.
cheers
BM
18 EarthlinkLA-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.224.86) 107.363 ms 107.592 ms 106.501 ms
19 f5-0-0-cr02-pas.neteng.itd.earthlink.net (207.217.1.44) 106.004 ms 107.202 ms 106.447 ms
20 207.217.2.27 (207.217.2.27) 107.577 ms 109.698 ms 111.014 ms
21 216.249.64.35 (216.249.64.35) 107.946 ms 108.521 ms 106.762 ms
22 hsa015.pool022.at101.earthlink.net (216.249.93.15) [closed] 124.726 ms 123.248 ms 129.078 ms
Pasadena area, maybe?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
>That's a great way to make your site less accessible to people with disabilities.
Blame the Cause not the Effect.
if everyone would do what ever they could to fight spam we could really make some progress against spammers
you could use spamcop.net or read some of these ideas
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
spam fighting ideas
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
I'll meet you half way. I still block out banner ads from companies that request cookies with the ad. Unfortunately, that's most of them these days. I'll allow unobtrusive ads supporting a site I like, except when they engage in secretive tracking of my browsing behaviors.
An advertiser keeping tabs on me without first asking me if that's okay steps way over the line of trust.