Exposing Spammers For All They're Worth

llywrch points out this interesting story at Art & Farces in which a "guy fights spammers by occasionally sending an email telling the spammer to leave him alone or he'll bill for time & services. Some take him off their mailing list, some pay the bill, but most don't respond . . . except one guy who was so incensed at receiving this invoice he had his lawyers send a threatening note. Makes it easier for Fraase to collect on his invoice."

Comments

Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[evilviper]

Empty threats are nice... but until large numbers of people go to court to fight against spammers, well, you lie in the bed you've made (or have done nothing to stop).

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[WickedClean]

You know what I found interesting is just how many people's address books I am in. I found this out during the FunLove thing when I was getting emails from people I'd never heard of before. Spam list compilers, perhaps? I wouldn't be suprised.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Gabey]

Remember that that virus also went through people's web caches looking for email addresses as well...so if you have yours on your website, it'll appear that you're more popular than you actually are ;>

Don't feel bad, I got my hopes up to when all these people started asking my advice on documents.

-gps

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Overcoat]

Wahington State went after spammers. The state was the first to pass anti-spamming legislation. More info here: http://www.wa.gov/ago/clearinghouse/consumer/junke mail/home.html

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[dytin]

Legislation is not what we need to stop spammers. The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us. There are enough dumb people out there that actually buy crap from the spammers. Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop. Or if you don't want spam, just don't use email.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

What help will it be if we the "smart people" don't buy from spammers? We already don't but the "dumb people" do so the money flow will remain unchanged.

I'd prefer legislation against spam so that marketers can still sell to "dumb people" through classic methods like infomercials, home shopping networks, and advertisements in tabloid magazines.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Twanfox]

Spammers never needed email before to 'get the message out'. It's called Direct Marketing for snail mail. Buy a product once, you go in their database. Periodically, whenever some new 'deal' comes out, no matter what your fealings are on the store, they feel compelled to issue you out a letter/flyer/etc informing you of what great new products they have just for you!

Email just makes it easier, and harder to trace back, if you know what you're doing.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[AntiNorm]

Wahington State went after spammers. The state was the first to pass anti-spamming legislation.

And many states have followed suit. Check spamlaws.com to see if your state (or country) is on the list.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Jace of Fuse!]

I hate spam, but I don't really think the government should be getting involved. They take enough liberties away from us. If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.

The only law that I think should be allowed concerns the requirement of those doing business on the net do so with full disclosure. If someone is going to mass e-mail they should not be allowed to misrepresent their e-mail address or host of origin. I consider that forgery and it should be punished as such.

Not only does it make finding those guilty of the forgery difficult to act against, but it also makes it hard to trust them enough to do business with them. It's for this reason that I do not do business with spammers. It's not enough that the products they are trying to sell to people are about totally worthless, but if you add to that the fact that they can't even tell you who they really are then one can only wonder who the hell WOULD want to do business with them in the first place.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[hashinclude]

Spammers never needed email before to 'get the message out'. It's called Direct Marketing for snail mail. Buy a product once, you go in their database. Periodically, whenever some new 'deal' comes out, no matter what your fealings are on the store, they feel compelled to issue you out a letter/flyer/etc informing you of what great new products they have just for you!

Actually if you look at Snail mail and Email, it costs a lot more to send a snail mail (print it out onto flyers, use envelopes, put appropriate postage on the envelope (so that the whole deal looks appealing), and create mailing lables to send the whole thing to.

With Email, it just has to be addressed to a mailing list (or a spam software given a list of addresses) and the *ENTIRE* message is put out. The whole thing turns out to be at least 100 times chepaer (in terms of efficiency, money, everything).

Email spam is just more efficient, and therefore more far reaching.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Micah]

You know, you're probably right. Spam IS theft -- theft of service and time -- and should be treated as such.

I was raised thinking that sueing is "bad" and I have always detested the way many in our society are so litigeous. But spam is making me just mad enough that I think I'd be willing to jump in that game if there's any chance i could win.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Twanfox]

Whatever costs are involved between Direct Marketing and Email spam tend to be only barely relevent. Spam is literally unwanted solicitations. I don't recall ever signing up for Direct Marketing ads to be shipped to my mailbox. I don't seem to recall ever agreeing to receipt of 5-6 credit card offers a week. While they do tend to provide me a good laugh, they all wind up in the garbage.

Spam is spam is spam. Email, direct mail, or telepathy. Unwanted advertisements are just that, unwanted. Personally, I'd like to see something done about spam that includes direct mail as well, since direct mail has one added problem associated with it. Large expendature of limited resources on the hope of a 10-20% return.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

I hate spam, but I don't really think the government should be getting involved. They take enough liberties away from us. If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.

Drop the Republican anti-government hate mongering. The federal government passed a law against junk faxes years ago and it hasn't lead to the confiscation of fax machines, innocent people being fined or jailed, or any violation of anyone's liberties. The law simply recognized that junk faxes, like e-mail spam, cost the recipients. In the case of faxes, the costs include toner and paper while spam e-mail costs include higher ISP fees to cover the cost of bandwidth, storage, and the salaries of the abuse department personnel.

The only law that I think should be allowed concerns the requirement of those doing business on the net do so with full disclosure. If someone is going to mass e-mail they should not be allowed to misrepresent their e-mail address or host of origin.

Your time isn't worth anything, is it? Well mine is and I don't want to have to wade through multiple spams per day. I don't want to have to opt-out 20 times a day. I want to be able to use a pager to tell me when I receive e-mail -- and not have it go off every two minutes because some loser sent me spam. It's my e-mail. I've paid for it, and no spammer has a right to use it for his advertising.

Collect calls from telemarketers are illegal. Junk faxes are illegal. E-mail spam should also be illegal.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Znork]

Eh, well, that reminds me of a (salon?) article a year or so ago. Do you know how many of the spammails where you cannot in any way give them money however much you try?

I mean, yes, there are loads of dumb people available, but those dumb people actually have to be able to find out where to send the money.

Of course, that says loads about how smart those spammers are...

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Jace of Fuse!]

Your time isn't worth anything, is it?

It's worth quite a bit. I dispise spam and receive so much I've resorted to using a private e-mail address for real communication with just a few poeple and forwarding all junk to a box that I never check. Other semi-important stuff (such as site-registration etc) goes to a third... and yet still I have other mail addy's for other things.

It's annoying and I shouldn't have to do this.

But I think the more laws that we pass the more screwed we're letting ourselves get. If we are allowed to track down spammers we could fight them much easier. At the moment however everybody like you wants to just cut them off immediately with the legal system instead of using current laws to help us fight them without having to resort to piling on more and more laws every day.

And one other thing -- my anti-law feelings are definately Libertarian, not Republican. If you're going to call me names, get your shit straight. Nobody likes a twisted turd.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[mgv]

Could it be reasonable to attack the "enter you details here to unsubscribe" sites? These sites (usually) add you to a spam list. Its easy to test - just unsubscribe an address and see what spam turns up there.

Then having identified such sites, start filling them up with multiple false unsubscriptions, until their mail sender groans under the weight of thousands (nay, millions) of false eMail addresses.

The joy of this approach is that I can't see how it would hit and certainly how hit would hurt a legitimite unsubscribe site.

Michael

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

I hate spam, but I don't really think the government should be getting involved. They take enough liberties away from us. If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.

Drop the Republican anti-government hate mongering.

Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties being slowly eliminated, that's "hate mongering"??

Wow, I'm sure your comrades from the old indoctrination camps are impressed.

(At least it's good to know that knee-jerk reaction to someone treading carefully around civil liberties identifies them as "Republican" for a change...though I suspect that has more to do with the choice of the phrase "hate mongering" than with the issue of "civil liberties".)

As far as the other adjective, "anti-government", is concerned, I find it interesting that when someone says government should be kept small, effective, and non-intrusive, they're "anti-government", but when someone tells a friend that they should lose excess fat, or should figure out what they most want to do in life and focus primarily on that, or should keep their noses out of other peoples' business, they're looking out for that friend's well-being rather than being "anti-friend". Hmm.

Something for those interested in /. moderation to think about: the post I'm replying to was scored at +5, Insightful, while the post he was trashing was at only +2, Informative (though that author's response to the "hate-mongering" post was at +3, Insightful).

Which does that suggest most about /. moderators:

• They find posts expressing concern about over-regulation opening the door to eliminating civil liberties less worthy than those restating the legal status of various forms of spam and opining that e-mail spam should be illegal.

• They love any post that starts off with a phrase like "Drop the Republican anti-government hate mongering", despite the fact that there's no evidence in the parent post of either Republicanism per se or hatred at all.

I'm guessing think it's about a 50/50 proposition....

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Zspdude]

Hear, Hear! I don't know what cross section of the /. population I represent, but I certainly know that if I ever get spam, I just delete it due to my naturally lazy and apathetic nature. It would take a whole lot to convince me that I could make a difference against spam, and that I should take the trouble to do anything about it. (But I never make my bed) ;)

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello? The +5 post tho which you're replying gets points because it states clearly that there has already been legislation for similar problems which unfairly transfer costs from the advertiser to the recipient. Go back and read it again. Neat, clean, and I agree wholeheartedly with the poster's contentions.

Now read the parent. The parent just states an unsupported opinion (unsupported in that he fails to describe anything beyond his own feelings and opinions). No points from me there.

Then there's the AC parent which makes an interesting point and has likewise been modded up.

My nick is BadDoggie. I'm anon here so my mod points on this thread don't disappear. Quit bitching about moderation already. We're not all anti-government, anti-corporation, hypocritical l4M3 twits. If you participate more, you can be a mod, too.

woof.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties being slowly eliminated, that's "hate mongering"??

No, but when they say the following, it is "anti-government hate mongering":

If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.

Read it. Any Internet-related law "will be...used against" non-spammers and "we'll have tons of law[sic] telling us what we can and can not do with the internet." The original poster stated it as fact.

As far as the other adjective, "anti-government", is concerned, I find it interesting that when someone says government should be kept small, effective, and non-intrusive, they're "anti-government"

Don't twist what he wrote. He didn't express anything like what you just did. His premise was that the government, if it outlawed spam, would run amuck, destroying our civil liberties and passing an uncontrollable barrage of laws related to the Internet. If you don't see that as an anti-government sentiment, you probably think of Timothy McVeigh as a patriot.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

But I think the more laws that we pass the more screwed we're letting ourselves get.

Why would you be against a law prohibiting theft -- which is what spam is? Laws aren't bad. The anti junk fax law that I pointed out is an example of a perfectly good law that hasn't hurt anyone (other than junk faxers).

If we are allowed to track down spammers we could fight them much easier.

So laws are bad but lawsuits are good? You and I are definitely not on the same page.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the expected junk mail return rate is 0.15-0.5%, and that's more hope than expectation, even for coupon packs (US). Spam return rates are much lower. Five to ten responses per million is a good return rate.

woof.

Baddoggie posts anon to save mod points. All this logging in and out is getting on my tits, and checking "Post as AC"desn't really make you AC -- all mods from a thread are removed, but the points aren't returned.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[pyramid termite]

Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties

Why should someone have the civil liberty to send me emails about "horse fucking" so I can recieve them just as the cable guy's checking to see if my new mail box is OK?

This really happened about a week ago. I was embarrassed!

Where's my right to have my computer connected without the cable guy thinking I'm a pervert?

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

No, but when they say the following, it is "anti-government hate mongering":

If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.

Read it. Any Internet-related law "will be...used against" non-spammers and "we'll have tons of law[sic] telling us what we can and can not do with the internet." The original poster stated it as fact.

Yet he's right. Nearly every law of substance has, at some time or another, been used against someone who wasn't the intended target of the legislation. He's warning against a slippery slope, and against human nature, not "hate-mongering", unless you find warnings against tyranny to be "hate-mongering" -- which I guess is the case here. (Consider such events as RICO laws being used to attack Operation Rescue, and the ADA being used by the Supreme Court as an excuse to rewrite the rules of golf, the right to free assembly notwithstanding. I can assure you, the authors of those pieces of legislation never intended such targeting.)

His premise was that the government, if it outlawed spam, would run amuck, destroying our civil liberties and passing an uncontrollable barrage of laws related to the Internet.

Perhaps you can get inside his head, but that's not quite what he wrote. What he wrote was correct -- that we should be aware of how laws designed to achieve a thing can have, in other words, unintended consequences, such as the possible (perhaps occasional) abuse of those laws, and that if we persist in not considering this possibility, continually asking government to protect us from even trivial impositions, the inevitable result will be a vast sea of incoherent, easily-abused legislation.

All of which has been proven true by the history of the USA, one of the most freedom-loving nations in history, yet also one that has a proven record of accumulating a vast sea of legislation and regulation, almost all of which was well-intentioned.

If you don't see that as an anti-government sentiment, you probably think of Timothy McVeigh as a patriot.

I'd say if you don't see what he and I worry about as being pro-individual-freedom as well as sensitive to all of recorded history and embodying common sense, and persist in seeing it as "anti-government hate-mongering", you probably think of Singapore as a paragon of governance.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties

Why should someone have the civil liberty[...]

I was referring to civil liberties in general, and that was the context in which they were being discussed.

I don't think any of us, involved in this somewhat-tangential thread, questions your civil rights to decide how resources you pay for (such as your Internet connection and email in-box) are to be used and to charge those who use it without permission (say, to send spam).

I'm mainly taking issue with the proposition that expressing concern about possible over-reaction by attempting to legislate away spam consitutes "anti-government hate-mongering".

In my opinion, such name-calling constitutes extremism, which is uncalled-for in this context.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

hey dumbass, they are deleteing part of the library of congress, how is that not taking away rights, things are different now.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[erc]

As Barry Goldwater said, "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue ... extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[SlamMan]

And he was resoundly defeated in his Presidential bit, right? If Regan had said "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no vice ... extremism in the defense of liberty is no virtue," it wouldn't make that any more true either.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[budgenator]

The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us
No I don't think so, but a lot of Lusers think they are. It's probably more like welder-spark + disposable-butane-lighter = 15,000 lbs air-fuel bomb.

There are enough dumb people out there that actually buy crap from the spammers. Lusers who are dumb enough to buy the crap are also dumb enough to believe that their CC data is more likely to be stolen off a SSL connection to the transaction house than they are to be muggged in the mall parking lot.

Just quietly delete all of you spam I actualy take some time once in a while, read it and compain to the person who benefits and CC the host, if it involves a regualated profession I also complain to the states board of professional liciensure or if it looks like fraud, to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

I'd like to see a law prohibiting falsified header info, punishing broken opt-out links, and perhaps giving recipients a more convienint way of sueing spammers for dammages. Punnishing affiate programms that pay for click-throughs from Email would help a lot

when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop.
Your implying that the spammers are making money, posibly the only ones that are on the internet perhaps? More likely they are dreamming of make one big hit that'll come from the next scam

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

As Barry Goldwater said, "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue ... extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Thanks. I think you're helping me make my point (and supporting the original poster).

Still, it's hard to tell, since I think it was I who introduced the word "extremism" in this thread, and I used it to describe someone calling what I considered to be a defense of liberty "anti-government hate-mongering".

So, if you meant to agree that our defense of liberty, in the sense of warning against excessive regulation by government, is wise, great.

If you were trying to rebut my use of the word "extremism", your use of the Goldwater quote was off the mark, since it justifies a specific form of extremism, but certainly not the form I was identifying.

I.e. Goldwater emphatically did not say "Extremism in defense of excessive government regulation is no vice", at least not in that quote!

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

lmao :))

Hey, when you're an old man, and you can't get your rawkz off, you'll probably hate that even more... haha

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[hebertrich]

Well i been doing this for over a year now.Sending a letter in which you state rightfully that spam is costing you time ,bandwidth and is annoying,not to mention unsollicited.There are examples of this letter on the net.And after sending the letter
to a spammer, well i never heard anything from then ever again.So it would be nice collecting them and a pleasure,but didnt collaborate in my get rich quick scheme.. a pity.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[kefoo]

We have successfully /.ed a government site!

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[The_Unforgiven]

I agree. Any problem that can be solved without government involvement should be solved that way if possible.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Masem]

And I'll also point out that the federal Supreme Court, by not deciding to take a case, has also acknowledged that WA state's spam laws do not violate the Commerce clause as stated by the WA Supreme Court, since they are aimed to prevent fraud (such as false headers or incorrect removal instructions) as opposed to restricting commercial speech as other anti-spam laws have tried to done in the past. See this CNet story, for example (Tried to submit this when this was hot, of course it was rejected :-)

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[panda]

We still get junk faxes, despite the laws. Most laws passed by the U.S. legislature aren't worth the effort that they take to pass.

You know the old joke? "If con is the opposite of pro, then what's the opposite of progress?"

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[archen]

and when you open them up with word, they're just a garbled mess. What's up with that? I just send them back and tell them it sucks.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[turg]

The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us. There are enough dumb people out there that actually buy crap from the spammers

I'm not so sure about that. The actual spammers do not have a product to sell other than their spamming services. They get paid (up front, I'm sure) as long as they convince some clueless business to use their services -- it doesn't hurt them if not one person buys the product advertised.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[keefebert]

I once read that if a company sends out 1,000 spam emails on a product that gets them $10 profit, they will have a 2% response. That equals 20 people at $10 a person, an easy $200. Now imagine if that spammer can get out 10,000 or 100,000 spams. The profits grew quickly.

If you really want to stop all of this, I have read a couple things you can do. If you reply to enough lists to unsubscribe eventually, I hear, you get your spam down low. You can also report places to the BBB that sell suspicious products. Many times these companies are not legit. Another place to go in the IRS. How many of these spammers do you think file tax returns?

I am by no means a fan of spam, but I really don't know what the government could do. They could outlaw it, but it is kind of hard to enforce. I just suck it up and live with it.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[wackysootroom]

Spammers typically do not make much money. One could probably make more opening up a lemonade stand on a corner in the summer. Spammers usually quit when they get kicked off of a couple of ISP's and lose a significant amount of money. The problem is that MLM and other pyramid schemes are promoting spam as a marketing tool, and the brainwashed 'salesman soldiers' are totally sold into the prospect of getting a new house, boat or vacation. What they do get is alot of complaint letters from ISP's and a large amount of debt.

As long as people are stupid enough to buy a MLM salesmans pitch, there will be new armies of spammers awaiting. The spammer is usually short lived, but fired up by a motivational speech and more likely to turn other dimitted folk into spammers.

Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop. Or if you don't want spam, just don't use email.

As long as nobody complains or does anything about spam, it will not stop. For some people spam really hurts on bandwidth costs. Would you complain if somebody was stealing electricity from you, or would you let them continue and hope that they will stop someday when they tire of it?

As far as not using email, that is not an option for many people.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Karl Cocknozzle]

If we are allowed to track down spammers we could fight them much easier.

So laws are bad but lawsuits are good? You and I are definitely not on the same page.

While it's true there are no "FAX Police" after the government banned "junk fax", this isn't a fair comparison to internet spam.

Main reason is that there was never a burgeoning "FAX Community" that was trying to exist without government regulation.

Just so you know, being against a large, unwieldly government isn't "hate-mongering" or "Republican". Republicans are just as interested in a large government with high taxes as the Democrats, they just favor it in a different way, slightly smaller, slightly lower taxes way.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Mr. Slippery]

Why should someone have the civil liberty to send me emails about "horse fucking"

For the same reason that they have the right to come up next to you in a bar and say, "Hey, let me tell you about this horse I fucked the other day...".

Of course there are limits; if you get up and move and he follows you and keeps telling his story, that's harassment, which is actionable. (Spamming that continues after you've demanded them to remove you could be considered in this category - but so would someone who keeps forwarding you stupid and offensive jokes after you've asked them to stop.) If he stands out in the middle of a quiet residental street screaming out his story, that's disturbing the peace, which is actionable. (Flooding your inbox with spam might qualify also.) The content of the story itself is irrelevent; it's time, place, and manner that can be regulated.

The spam issue has nothing to do with the fact that the spam might be embarassing to you. It does, however, have everything to do with fraud and forgery; even the most libertarian people can't be against a law that punishes that.

There's often trademark violation involved as well (lately I've been getting a lot of spam made up to look like Yahoo! was somehow involved); while trademark is highly overused these day, someone using your mark to attempt to legitimize their spam is clearly over the line.

I was embarrassed! Where's my right to have my computer connected without the cable guy thinking I'm a pervert?

Hmm...don't see that one in the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, any state constitutions, the Bill of Rights...sorry, but I don't think there's a right to not be embarrassed by other people's speech.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Pig Hogger]

Legislation is not what we need to stop spammers. The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us. There are enough dumb people out there that actually buy crap from the spammers. Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop. Or if you don't want spam, just don't use email.

This is precisely the kind of sheepish thinking spammers (or anyone who scams people by taking advantage of them) are counting on, and as long as there will be, profiteerers will have a jolly good time.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Skapare]

Whether spam makes money for spammers or not is irrelevant. The reason we get the hassle from them is because it is easier for them to shotgun blast a million messages for 10 responses. The reason this works is because ISPs let it work.

In cases where a spammer has their own network, I just block their network ... no more spam from them. Now if their ISP helps them by giving them new addresses to get around it, then I'll block the whole ISP.

In cases where a spammer does not have their own network, their ISP should block SMTP outbound from such customers, and force them to use the ISP mail server, and include in it throttling of some kind. One way to do it is to give each dynamic address customer an outbound mail quota of say 1000 messages a month and charge them $1.95 for each message over that. That works out to $1948050.00 billable for the ISP (not like they'd ever be able to collect on it). Even if the ISP charge $0.01 per message, we're still talking $9990.00 here, which would really inhibit a spammer's ability to make money.

In practice, the ISP should simply disallow email over the quota unless the customer has agreed in writing to pay.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[zaren]

See also: www.spamcon.org

This site offers a listing of ALL laws on the books in U.S. States, as well as a weatlh of other information. They also maintain a mailing list which is currently tracking the efforts of several people who are actively suing spammers.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Washington States law is very specific about what constitutes spame, it's anything that does not have a way to get off the list, and an invalid return address on the e-mail.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[imuffin]

I think I prefer spam to snail mail advertisements. At least with spam I can just hit the delete key. And even though spammers whine about the fact that they are paying for the spam to be delivered, I guess I'm in the minority in that my ISP's bill doesn't go up every month depending on the number of spams I get

Now don't get me wrong, I still hate spam in my inbox, but at least these people aren't cutting down trees to clutter my physical space with their message - information that if I wanted, I could go out and get myself!

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[renehollan]

Why would you be against a law prohibiting theft -- which is what spam is

Because the proposal is for a law banning spam, i.e. yet another law. Laws against theft should be sufficient to use against spammers if precedent is established that spam is theft of service.

There are just too many laws which (a) are redundant, (b) used to restrict otherwise acceptable activity in the name of the crime they seek to deter. So, It should not surprise that libertarians (myself included) are wary of more laws when existing ones might suffice.

Personally, though, I don't think that the "spam as theft" argument would stick. I think a stronger case could be made under the fraud statutes with regard to originator mis-representation.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Philbert Desenex]

Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop. Or if you don't want spam, just don't use email.

The only problem with "just hit delete" is that the spammers actually steal from their victims. Email spams cost (admittedly each one only costs a small amount) in terms of network connection time, CPU cycles, disk space, user time to hit delete. I suspect that what you're advocating would minimize any given individual's cost of dealing with spam, but we'd end up in a "tragedy of the commons" situtation, and ultimately any given individual's spam burden would be unbearable.

The other problem with email spam is that the economics of it differ from traditional advertising. In traditional advertising, the ads get paid for by a firm before you or I make a decision on buying a product. If the ad for the product in question sucks, we don't buy. If the ad for the product in question offends enough people, we don't buy. There's feedback between the ad and the "invisible hand" of the marketplace. If the ad isn't good (for whatever reason) the product doesn't get bought, and the firm is out the cost fo the ad. Email spam, the potential customers bear a large part of the cost before making a decision about buying the product advertised by spam. Any given ad budget can finance way more spam than conventional advertising because those being advertised too have to pay for the ad before they buy the product. The feedback, although not totally eliminated, is vastly weaker than before.

Because of the greatly weaker market forces, we do need legislation to stop spam.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

> I hate spam....

But I like spam. I'd tell you how much, but I need to post quickly so that I can respond to an "Important Offer" I just got.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I live in Washington, and the level of incoming spam I get has not decreased. The only difference is that sometimes it comes with a variation of the following disclaimer:

"This email is not intended for residents of Washington State. If you live in washington, we're sorry, ignore this email."

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[sammy baby]

Personally, though, I don't think that the "spam as theft" argument would stick. I think a stronger case could be made under the fraud statutes with regard to originator mis-representation.

Perhaps, but then you're trying to enforce something completely different. Generally, anti-spam legislation is designed to thwart a type of communication: the only qualification being that the communication has to be unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE). To fall afoul of anti-spam laws doesn't require that the commercial message endorse a product fradulently ("ENLARGE YOUR PENIS, UP TO 6 INCHES!!!"), or inappropriately ("Sister Mary, of Our Lady of the Assumption - do you want to see pics of real amateur sluts?"). So, anti-fraud actions aren't really going to address the problems that anti-spam legislation backers want to address.

The problem with treating is that it isn't obvious that e-mail spam is theft. Frequently, court cases against spam pushers are couched using "trespass to chattels" laws. But those laws aren't perfect for this - take a look here for a discussion of some of the problems associated with it.

There are just too many laws which (a) are redundant, (b) used to restrict otherwise acceptable activity in the name of the crime they seek to deter. So, It should not surprise that libertarians (myself included) are wary of more laws when existing ones might suffice.

You're right in that laws can be misapplied. However, the counterargument here is that you can't prosecute something which isn't illegal. Just as prosecutors can misapply laws to prosecute actions outside of the intent of the authors, defendants can argue that existing laws do not apply to their actions - for example, by arguing that a trespass to chattels law doesn't make sense in the context of e-mail spamming.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[gmack]

It's not two percent.. we hosted a spammer here once and I checked the subscriber list as I was closing the account. It's actually 0.0013 percent(based on 10 million emails).

that means you have to be *really* obnoxious to make any money at all.

Ohh and the percentage gets better of you spam to AOL users(freaking morons sent me hate mail last time I shut an account down)

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

Well, here I was considering complaining about my earlier post (this one's parent) being modded down "Offtopic" twice, because I don't know whether /. archives 0-rated posts, and I notice the post to which it responded, which used to be +5, has gotten down to a more reasonable level (+2), thanks in part to a couple of "Flamebait" moderations.

While I still think this side issue (of the appropriateness of calling cautions against government interference in the spam issue "anti-government hate-mongering") isn't entirely "Offtopic", I guess, all told, my post being only a couple of points lower than the parent post isn't an example of moderation run amok.

(After all, I did focus on just one phrase in an otherwise reasonable post. Had to get off my chest my annoyance at how widely the phrase "anti-government" is used to describe prescriptions that would likely increase government effectiveness at doing its actual job, while I was at it, but it's my own fault for picking a less-than-squarely-on-topic opportunity to rattle that gilded cage.)

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Sygnus]

We have successfully /.ed a government site!

I wonder if that would constitute an act of terrorism.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[scoove]

One effective way to deal with this is maillist pollution with the Jam the Spammers Maillist Game.

Step 1. Start filling out online registrations (probably something you already avoid) and seek out folks that are looking for this type of marketing data (e.g. Radio Shack, Best Buy).

Step 2. Jam their marketing radar with noise. Noise can be incorrect zip codes for you, creative names and addresses, even brand new people that live in exotic places. For instance, I've always figured that the post office at Manville Wyoming must be quite bored, being in the least populated county of the least populated state. Zip code is 82227, which makes it easy to remember. And best of all, General Delivery helps your mailman by letting him toss the junkmail in a tall pile that can be left for a long time. (For a pretty picture of Wyoming's Niobrara county, see this site.)

Remember, the more garbage you dump into their maillists, the less effective those mail lists are that they're selling.

Looking at an recent maillist quote for my metropolitan area, InfoUSA wants $5,000 for a list of businesses complete with fax, email, etc. Imagine how frustrated list buyers get when they discover half of these leads are garbage. The greater the background noise, the less effective the marketing campaign, and the more likely other means will be sought in locating customers.

Start your jamming!

*scoove*

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[robbway]

Thanks for this insight. Most people aren't aware of the distributed cost of the internet.

I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that results of spamming have nothing to do me deleting them off. First, they're relentless, which to me constitutes harassment. Second, for every 999 people that simply delete, 1 (or more) responds.

Unsolicited business requests are not, with the exception of legal precedent, Constitutionally guaranteed. Unsolicited e-mail, unsolicited junkmail, and especially unsolicited phone calls should be illegal. The Constitution only guarantees individuals, not companies, free speech.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

hey dumbass

I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you are -- and I have the IQ scores and professional credentials to prove it.

they are deleteing part of the library of congress, how is that not taking away rights, things are different now.

And what does that have to do with e-mails entitled "Lose weight now!!", "68 MILLION Email Adresses - ONLY $149!!", "Sexual Enhancement", "Your Free Sex Passwords", "NEW MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH: EAT LOTS, DON'T GAIN!", "Advertise on tthe[sic] Internet !!!", "Easy fast cash in 48 hours!!", "Forbidden XXX", "ÐÌsì£~--ÅÜÁnqܾ÷/ÓqÅã¥Ü¾", "Terminate Credit Card Debt!", "Herbal Viagra.- 30 day trial....", "Prescriptions Online", and "Snoring Remedy -80% Effective -No Surgery"?

We might as well dismantle our government now. When you don't want Congress to pass laws to protect the citizens, then Congress serves no purpose.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> We still get junk faxes, despite the laws.
>>> Most laws passed by the U.S. legislature
>>> aren't worth the effort that they take to pass.

Well, the FCC does take a dim view of junk faxes:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/usnotary2.ht ml

covers the formal announcement, and the gory details, some of which are rather amusing (the
idiots sent a junk fax to the Texas Attorney General's office!) are at:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01301.html

All you need to do is tell them!! And, BTW, the laws that US Notary violated were those passed by
Congress - 47 USC 227 (b)(1)(C), not some random FCC regulation (codified under 47 CFR).

90 Grand ain't chump change, either...

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[rew]

Legislation is not what we need to stop spammers. The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us.

Yes, and by outlawing spamming, we have effective ways of costing them more money.

Paper advertizing costs money per-target as you have to print and distribute the materials. Email-advertizing costs almost no money per-target. So where a shop may need 1% of the readers to stop by to buy some item after they dropped the junk-mail in your mailbox, a spammer may need only a 0.01% response rate. Thus they are causing an inconvenience for a much larger group that won't buy their product anyway.

Getting 50% of the users to boycott the spammer's business is easy. 99% of the users are already doing that. It's that last 0.01% that is making the spamming business profitable.

Roger.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

Thank you for your response. But if you are upset that RICO laws were used to fight anti-abortion terrorists and murderers and that the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living, we don't have enough in common to make further discussion between us worthwhile.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[pyramid termite]

Why should someone have the civil liberty to send me emails about "horse fucking"

For the same reason that they have the right to come up next to you in a bar and say, "Hey, let me tell you about this horse I fucked the other day...".

No. I'm not in a bar, I'm in my house. My email box is not a public place.

The spam issue has nothing to do with the fact that the spam might be embarassing to you.

Yeah, and what if a minor should be the recipient of the horse fucking email? You do understand that it's against the law to send materials like that to a minor?

I don't think there's a right to not be embarrassed by other people's speech.

On my property, which my email box is? (Otherwise why do I have to have a username and password to access it? I pay for it, don't I?) I have news for you - in my house, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, any state constitutions, the Magna Carta don't apply because I am the Grand Dictator of my house until my wife comes home!

The simple truth is that people are abusing "freedom" here. Ask yourself what's going to happen when a few Senators' daughters get some "horse fucking" emails. Me, I thought it was funny, if annoying. What you think they'll think about it and what do you think they're going to do about it? The truth is, we need laws to take care of this, but we need them before the extremists in Congress get pissed about things like this.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Mr. Slippery]

You do understand that it's against the law to send materials like that to a minor?

I don't see anything in the First Amendment that says "unless a kid happens to be listening". Any such law is prima facie unconstitutional.

On my property, which my email box is? I have news for you - in my house...

Falacy of extended analogy. Your e-mail spool isn't even a real thing, it's a virtual artifact of software, not at all the same class of entity as your physical dwelling.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[halbritt]

Why would you be against a law prohibiting theft -- which is what spam is? Laws aren't bad. The anti junk fax law that I pointed out is an example of a perfectly good law that hasn't hurt anyone (other than junk faxers).

There are already laws prohibiting theft, we don't need more.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[rkent]

The Constitution only guarantees individuals, not companies, free speech.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled, seperately, that corporations are individuals for the purposes of the first and fourteenth amendments.

I only have a link for the first amendment case, CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, 447 U.S. 530 (1980), which is the one that specifically states that corporations are entitled to free speech protection under the constitution.

In addition, here's a more general article about the issue, which is less detailed but much easier to read than the supreme court opinion.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[weinerdog]

The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us. There are enough dumb people out there that actually buy crap from the spammers. Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop.

Your second point explains why your idea won't work.

If you can send out email to 50,000 people for, say, $200, and if you make $10 profit per sale, then you only need 20 out of 50,000 recipients to buy and you've made a profit. You and 49,979 other people -- 99.96% of all recipients -- can delete the email in disgust, but as long as those 0.04% others respond, the spammer breaks even. If an additional 0.01% respond, the spammer has made a $100 profit on an investment of $200 for marketing and whatever their fake product costs to make and ship.

Okay, these numbers are fabricated, but they're illustrative of the kinds of volume and margins that we're dealing with. A spammer doesn't care if 99.9% of recipients don't want the email and would never, ever buy their pyramid scheme/bulk mail software/penis enlargement pill; as long as one out of every thousand or so recipients are suckers, spamming is money well-spent for the spammer. It's certainly cheaper to carpet bomb everyone than it is to try to selectively market to idiots. I don't know how many people are suckers, but more than 1 in 1000 seems a safe bet.

Making spam a net money loser would effectively get rid of it, at least domestically. The most effective, least invasive way to do this would seem to be to provide civil and/or criminal penalties for spamming.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington's Anti-Spam law was struck down in federal court, apparently it was an illegal attempt to curb free speech.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[drsquare]

Theft? Your bandwidth must be very expensive...

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Enter your email address as: root@localhost and similar such addresses when you are forced to enter in email addresses that you know will send spam.
-k

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[spectro]

Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop

There will be always dumb people, so that's not the answer. I have some ideas:

- SMTP servers should come with a restricted incoming mail policy by default (no more than 10 mails from same IP/domain per minute or something like that). Postmasters could even charge you for unrestricted sending access making spam more expensive.

- A flag in DNS MX record to indicate IP addreses of servers allowed to send email from their domain, SMTP servers will reject mail from IPs not in that list, this will get rid of all these spammers spoofing hotmail, yahoo, etc. accounts.

I think it is time for these big internet organizations like W3C to get together and set email server standars against spam.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

But if you are upset that RICO laws were used to fight anti-abortion terrorists and murderers and that the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living, we don't have enough in common to make further discussion between us worthwhile.

We already have laws against terrorists and murderers, and I'm no expert on the case, but there's evidently been substantial debate over the appropriateness of RICO in some of the actual cases it's been used for by the infant-murdering lobby (you use loaded words, I'll use 'em too, okay?).

As far as your claim that "the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living", that is an out-and-out lie. The Supreme Court, as I understand it, forced an independent organization to change its rules for a game to accommodate someone who was already entirely free to play the game however he saw fit, using whatever rules he liked, assembling and organizing with others with a like mind for that purpose, purchasing, renting, or borrowing land and/or other resources for that purpose. Unless the PGA had a government-imposed monopoly on anyone trying to make a living playing golf, the feds (SC+ADA) had no business interfering; and, if they did, it's the government's fault for imposing that monopoly in the first place. (I gather this is roughly the issue with baseball, so maybe it is with the PGA, but I've heard nobody commenting on this case mention that.)

Let's face it, the reason Timothy McVeigh happened is because of people like you -- people who can't get up in the morning without first thinking about how to get the government to impose their wills on others' lives, whether it's gun control, morality policing, whatever, but don't have the guts to impose it themselves, directly. People like you decided to rant, rave, lie, cheat, and tyrannize others, in direct defiance of the Constitution, by forcing gun-control legislation and implementation down the throats of Americans, claiming "oh, it's just to get guns out of the hands of criminals", knowing full well (if they had a brain in their heads) that the government would someday use the legislation and its desire to "make a statement" by attacking, using extreme force, an organization that, until that moment, had not been behaving criminally (in a manner as advertised by the gun-control lobby as the target of the laws). And, thanks to people like you, heroic law-enforcement officers get injured, maimed, and killed in the line of duty trying to impose laws you write on people who aren't evil, who are uninterested in committing any real crimes, but who have finally had it with the nearly-constant increase in government intrusiveness in their lives. Then people like you seek to make excuses for things like the Waco event, seeing a "kindred spirit" in someone like Janet Reno and thus not campaigning to have her fired, something that, by itself, would probably have been all it took to stop the OKC bombing from ever taking place. (McVeigh, for all his "evil", doesn't compare to the Unabomber in this respect: McVeigh's act was in retaliation for a series of clearly unconstitutional blunders by legislators, the executive branch, and the American people; the Unabomber acted in retaliation for human civilization and its inherent nature.)

Indeed, you and I don't have enough in common. You are a tyrant, probably just a tyrant wannabe, but a tyrant nevertheless, and it's now clear to anyone reading this thread why, to you, anyone who opposes continued expansion of government intrusiveness is an "anti-government hate-monger", because you love imposing your will on other people using force -- as the Supreme Court did in the golf case, as gun-control laws did (via government) at Waco, as Clinton plus many Republicans did with the Communications Decency Act (another clearly unconstitutional intrusion), and so on.

Whereas people like me, once hypnotized by the attraction of the passing of laws to "solve problems" and deluded into thinking that even the US government had an acceptable track record of fairly enforcing them -- regardless of the particular branch involved -- have shaken ourselves out of the stupor of pseudo-intellectualism, in which one is judged primarily by one's own presumed ability to direct the lives of others, and chosen instead to start each day by acknowledging our own inadequacy when it comes to directing others' lives, imposing our will, whether directly or collectively by vote, on others by force or threat of force, and regret the times we've felt forced to do it under various dire circumstances. And we've learned to recognize the blantantly obvious fact that, however "perfect" our proposed rules might be, they'll still be interpreted, executed, and imposed by fallible humans, not omniscient beings whose only concern is for the "public good", which is how government is usually billed (and what it should be all about, versus what it ever is, not being any more perfectable than are individual human beings). We figure, instead of trusting a vast array of people unknown to us to impose our wills on our behalf, why not just simplify the equation and trust our neighbor to do the right thing in the first place -- own guns or don't? allow a disabled friend to play in a golf game or not? view pornography on their home computer or not? -- because the government is fundamentally a weapon of mass destruction that is best kept sheathed, especially not pointed at our neighbors for every perceived slight or inconvenience or offense in our lives, and so that it may be more effective at actually doing what is critical to the preservation of the lives of its citizens, such as the defense of our borders, the assessing of risks, and so on.

So, while some of us plead to a God who we believe is the only lawgiver and judge, most of us just can no longer accept the delusion that, as difficult as it is to run our own lives and, where appropriate, direct the lives of our young offspring, we're somehow capable of also adequately deciding how others must live and forcing our wills on them by some means -- individually or collectively. Nor do we accept the proposition, ludicrous in both theory and practice, that there's a pre-determinable elite capable of governing in our stead.

Indeed, the reason the original poster expressed concern about possible anti-spam legislation, and certainly the reason I chimed in, is because people like you never stop and say "hmm, even though I might agree with the outcome of this law/case/government intervention/mass burning of far-right government-hating Christians/whatever, it's clear to me this did not truly follow the letter or intent of the law and, therefore, I can't support it; and maybe I should think twice, in the future, about supporting further legislation that might be similarly twisted to someone else's disadvantage".

So, go ahead and worship at the altar of governmental intervention in other peoples' lives, and sneer at those of us who campaign for self-control on the part of every human -- every potential tyrant -- as you clearly enjoy doing. Go ahead and hold a gun to my head to make sure I don't try to discourage a woman from having an abortion of convenience, or maintain rules of a game, or talk freely with my friends on the Internet. I won't try to stop you, as long as I believe my own rhetoric about avoiding imposing my will on others.

But make no mistake: you are the more tyrannical of the two of us, and, someday, somebody who is willing to do what it takes to stop people like you might decide he'd rather see my idea of self-government, rather than your notions of the importance of ever-expanding government, prevail.

As a Christian, I'm willing to die for my ideals. Are you willing to die for the ones you've espoused here? Would you be willing to personally force the PGA to allow a disabled golfer to use a cart when nobody else had been before, if you knew the response from the PGA might be a hail of gunfire, for example?

My guess: no, you're not. In my experience, tyrant wannabes are usually cowards; I have yet to meet a supporter of gun control who has actually gone door to door insisting people turn over their guns to them. Not in the way some of us have stood up to bullies and criminals and thus know what it takes -- risks as well as rewards -- to actually govern, and are thus, I would tend to think, less likely to blithely accept the notion that "there oughtta be a law" is the solution to every problem.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

infant-murdering lobby (you use loaded words, I'll use 'em too, okay?).

I use legal terms. When you shoot a doctor or kill people by bombing an abortion clinic, our laws recognize that as murder. Performing an abortion is not murder under U.S. laws. If you don't like that, lobby for the laws to be changed. But don't try to twist words to impose your morality on all of those who disagree with you.

As far as your claim that "the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living", that is an out-and-out lie. The Supreme Court, as I understand it, forced an independent organization to change its rules for a game to accommodate someone who was already entirely free to play the game however he saw fit, using whatever rules he liked, assembling and organizing with others with a like mind for that purpose, purchasing, renting, or borrowing land and/or other resources for that purpose.

How is a professional golfer supposed to earn a living by "purchasing, renting, or borrowing land" on which to play golf? He's a golfer, not an investment banker. And, like it or not, the PGA is the only game in town for professional golfers -- just as the NBA is for pro basketball players. The rules weren't "changed". The PGA was just required to make a reasonable accomodation for a handicapped player. Golf is about hitting a ball into a hole, not about walking and that's what the Supreme Court decided.

For someone who's so quick to point out his supposed "Christianity", you sure don't seem to have much in common with Christ when it comes to compassion for the less fortunate.

Let's face it, the reason Timothy McVeigh happened is because of people like you

You are another Timothy McVeigh with your rantings about dying for a cause, "tyrants", Waco, gun control, etc. I never mentioned anything about any of that. I simply said that junk e-mail, like junk faxes, should be made illegal. How the hell did that turn into an argument about abortions, gun control, tyrants, Waco, etc.? You need psychological counseling.

people who can't get up in the morning without first thinking about how to get the government to impose their wills on others' lives, whether it's gun control, morality policing, whatever, but don't have the guts to impose it themselves, directly.

"Morality policing?" You mean things like the religious right trying to ban abortions, same sex marriages, needle exchange programs for drug addicts, gays in the military, sex education in schools, and medical marijuana use for terminal cancer patients?

You are rude, insulting, and totally without honor. You have called me names and made slanderous accusations. If this is your idea of Christianity, I'm proud to be an atheist.

As a Christian, I'm willing to die for my ideals.

The world will be a better place for all of us if you make good on that -- for if you continue on the path you've started down, I fear that you you will be capable of unspeakable acts of violence. Anyone who would find any justification for the acts of Timothy McVeigh or the Operation Rescue murderers is a sick and dangerous man.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[walt-sjc]

Actually, legislation is exactly what we need to stop spammers. The problem has been that the current generation of spam laws have no teeth and are not designed correctly.

ISP's need to be able to sue for all the spam passing over their network on the order of $500 per email. Currently only the recipient can usually sue which means that you need thousands of users to file lawsuits which is not economically viable - it's not worth the time and effort for a couple of bucks not to mention the load on the court system. If AOL or UUNET were able to sue, the judgement would be in the millions - enough to bankrupt most spammers.
If I as an end-user could sue for a couple thousand in small claims court, it may be worth while...

Just deleting spam doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work. "If you don't want spam, don't use email." What the f??? kind of logic is that? How about if I get to pull the fingernails off a spammer... That would do a LOT more good, but I still think legislating the spammers into the poor house is better than torture.... On second thought,... Hmm.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[4of12]

I hate spam, but I don't really think the government should be getting involved. They take enough liberties away from us.

I agree with you.

I detest the inconvenience of wading through UBE, setting up procmail, etc. There are counterparts, too, such as the time I spend at the counter in my post office, removing catalogs, credit card offers, magazine subscription offers, supermarket flyers, etc.

But I would feel more inconvenienced if various fundamental liberties for free expression were eliminated by legislation. Oh, it's not an issue as long as you have a government with policies that are not too abhorent.

But consider if you had a government that sorely needed to be changed (say you're a resident of Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq or some authoritarian regime that punishes any expression of dissent).

In that case, an effective means for change would be the ability to broadcast anti-government propaganda to a wide audience and do it anonymously. Anti-spam legislation would effectively close those avenues. Which is fine, as long as you're willing to bet that you will never need those channels of communication in the future.

As it stands, it makes me nervous whenever censorship and limits on free expression are put into place. The current inconvenience is worth it IMHO.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame them:

Here are some recent lookups from SPAM in my inbox:

Registrant:
Banda Narcizo

Registrar: Act Now Domains (http://www.secureserver.net)
Domain Name: SILVERLINE-CO.NET

Registrant:
Modular Websites
PO Box 569
Point Roberts, WA 98281
US

Domain Name: SEMICUSTOMWEBSITES.NET

Sponsoring Reseller; for Technical Support
with respect to this domain contact:
FreeView Publishing Inc., jerry@freeview.com
604 687 0288

Registrant:
Only.com Ltd
C/o Shears, 29 High St.
Edgware, Middlexex HA8
United Kingdom
(PH) +33 494 60 13 25 (FAX) +33 494 60 10 65

Domain Name: ONLY-YELLOW-PAGES.COM

Administrative Contact:
Alkin, Tony (XYZX6494) tony.alkin@only.com
1728 Wisconsin Ave., #101
Washington, DC 20007
US
(PH) +377 93 50 62 19 (FAX) +377 93 30 59 94

Technical Contact:
Green, Richard (XYZX6669) richard.green@only.com
1728 Wisconsin Ave., #101
Washington, DC 20007
US
(PH) +377 93 50 62 19 (FAX) +377 93 30 59 94

Billing Contact:
Greene, Barry (XYZX6481) barry.greene@only.com
1728 Wisconsin Ave., #101
Washington, DC 20007
US
(PH) +377 93 50 62 19 (FAX) +377 93 30 59 94

Organization:
WebSoft, Inc.
Inderpal Guglani
400 Stag Horn Drive
Wexford, PA 15090
US
Phone: (412) 687-2228
Fax..: (724) 934-7729
Email: iguglani@a2zmoonlighter.com

Registrar Name....: Register.com
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

Domain Name: A2ZMOONLIGHTER.COM

Created on..............: Sun, Mar 12, 2000
Expires on..............: Tue, Mar 12, 2002
Record last updated on..: Fri, Sep 21, 2001

Administrative Contact:
WebSoft, Inc.
Inderpal Guglani
400 Stag Horn Drive
Wexford, PA 15090
US
Phone: (412) 687-2228
Fax..: (724) 934-7729
Email: iguglani@a2zmoonlighter.com

Technical Contact:
Register.Com
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: 212-798-9200
Fax..: 212-629-9305
Email: domain-registrar@register.com

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[dana_nutter]

Legislation is exactly what is needed, but not the weak laws we have already. Something that treats these theive as the criminals they are.

The JHD crowd is just going to get cramped fingers from pressing that delete key endlessly. They won't stop making money because the P.T. Barnum principle applies. There IS one born every minute.

Asking someone not to use e-mail these days is like asking someone to disconnect their telephone to stop the telemarketing vermin. Maybe you should get rid of your car. That way you won't get carjacked!

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[duplo]

dont forget "FREE PENIS ENLARGEMENT"

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[dana_nutter]

Most also seem to accept the other invasions into our lives an property.

All forms of "direct" marketing are violations of the recipients space. They all involve use of the recipients property in some manner, and all put some type of burden (even though it may be small) on the recipient.

Snail mail: This is effectively littering. The recipient is now responsible for the disposal of this junk mail. Now imagine the cost associated with dumping fees and the environmental impact on landfills. A cost which indirectly shows up on your trash pickup bills.

Telemarketing/Fax: A total stranger activating a device (telephone or fax machine) which doesn't belong to him.

E-mail Spam: The cost burden is almost totally on the recipient. We tend to look at the costs based on the typical dialup user paying $20/mo. What about two-way pagers and PDA's with those expensive wireless connections? What about the laptop connected to the satellite phone on an airplane at $10/min? What about the guy that loses a big business deal because that important e-mail just bounced due to a full mailbox? The economic impact is very high.

People are being ripped off constantly by these types of commercial terrorism. You can steal $1,000.000 from one person and you'll quicly get noticed by law enforcement, but if you steal $0.01 from 100,000,000 nobody notices. Either way, you're still a thief.

The real enemies are those who try an legitimize these types of theft, such as the DMA.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[DavidTC]

How about a law that requires the post office to stop delivering direct marketing if you ask?

Wait, we already have have that. Well, I bet you feel stupid now. Go down the post office tomorrow morning and opt-out. Once you continue getting direct mail, then you can complain.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

Don't try to twist words to impose your morality on all of those who disagree with you.

Uh, here's a clue: that's what you've been proposing to do throughout this discussion, impose your morality. I may talk about my morality, but I'm not imposing it -- by passing or pushing for legislation, by celebrating SC judgements, and so on.

As far as your claim that "the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living", that is an out-and-out lie. The Supreme Court, as I understand it, forced an independent organization to change its rules for a game to accommodate someone who was already entirely free to play the game however he saw fit, using whatever rules he liked, assembling and organizing with others with a like mind for that purpose, purchasing, renting, or borrowing land and/or other resources for that purpose.

How is a professional golfer supposed to earn a living by "purchasing, renting, or borrowing land" on which to play golf? He's a golfer, not an investment banker. And, like it or not, the PGA is the only game in town for professional golfers -- just as the NBA is for pro basketball players. The rules weren't "changed". The PGA was just required to make a reasonable accomodation for a handicapped player. Golf is about hitting a ball into a hole, not about walking and that's what the Supreme Court decided.

Like I said, maybe the PGA had a legal monopoly. But it, too, is just a bunch of golfers who've run their show as they saw fit. I'm sorry you don't agree with their rules.

But, if you and everyone else who celebrated the SC decision as a "victory" had, instead of the court case, simply organized your own golf association, with the rules set up as you see fit, I'm pretty sure it would have worked out quite well.

I don't see that he had a Constitutional right to change the rules of an organization that did, as far as I can tell, have a Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and decide for itself what its rules of play were.

For someone who's so quick to point out his supposed "Christianity", you sure don't seem to have much in common with Christ when it comes to compassion for the less fortunate.

Ah, the classic lie of a tyrant. The SC+ADA decision was not a compassionate decision, it was, fundamentally, a tyrannical one. "We don't like the rules you use for golf, PGA. We're going to make you change them. By force, if necessary. We have the guns and the ammo to do it."

Now, compassion may have been useful as an excuse for that decision, and I'm certainly in favor of the PGA making compassionate decisions on its own.

But I don't hold a gun to peoples' heads, force them to do something I want, then claim I'm being "compassionate" as people like yourself do.

That's what being a Christian is substantially about. Not imposing your will on others. Look it up; it's throughout the teachings of Christ. Pretty much the only nasty words he had for sinners was for those who put themselves in positions of power, tyrannizing others, i.e. imposing their wills on others. Look at the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven." No room for "my" (or "your") will there.

So, if that disabled golfer came to me with his problem, my compassion might lead me to a) heal him as many Christians have done to people in his situation; b) help him persuade the PGA to accommodate him; c) start and/or organize a new golf leagure that would accommodate him; or d) encourage him to compete in alternate venues and pay him the difference in $$ between what they pay him and what he'd get as a PGA golfer if they had changed the rules.

See how none of those options imposes my will on others, or encourages him to do the same? They're all entirely consistent with Christianity, and none of them are tyrannical.

(That is, of course, why hardly anybody talks about those options. Our entire society is thoroughly indoctrinated into the "tyrannical options" for solving problems.)

Let's face it, the reason Timothy McVeigh happened is because of people like you

You are another Timothy McVeigh with your rantings about dying for a cause, "tyrants", Waco, gun control, etc. I never mentioned anything about any of that.

Look, I expanded on the McVeigh point because you brought it up originally in your earlier post:

If you don't see that as an anti-government sentiment, you probably think of Timothy McVeigh as a patriot.

That's how tyrants think and operate: they blame others for the problems brought about because of their mind-sets. I hadn't mentioned McVeigh at all, but there you were, associating me with him, all because I challenged your comment about "anti-government hate-mongering". Tyrants hate being challenged on their terms, so they spew hatred, breathing out threatenings and slaughter at their victims.

I simply said that junk e-mail, like junk faxes, should be made illegal.

Here you lie yet again -- a common tactic of the tyrant defending his "rights" (in league with fellow tyrants) to exercising his tyrannies over others.

What you first proposed about making spam illegal didn't even show up on my radar, nor did what the other poster said in response about such laws being potentially turned against people who aren't really spammers. (Haven't we covered this ground before? Of course we have.)

It was when you accused him of "Republican anti-government hate-mongering" that I joined the discussion. It was at that point that you brought up McVeigh.

And it was at that point that I realized you weren't someone who just thought legislating against spam was a good idea, but in fact someone who is a tyrant-wannabe -- whose every explanation, defense, and accusation is rooted in imposing his will on other people. (In response to my examples, you might instead have said "yes, those might well be examples of abuse of well-intentioned laws, but I believe that happens rarely enough to not be a serious concern where anti-spam measures are involved". But, then, you could have simply said that to the original poster in the first place without throwing in the "anti-government hate-mongering" rhetoric commonly used by today's tyrant-wannabes, and I wouldn't have even gotten involved in the first place and upset you so.)

That hardly makes you unique -- it's a common malady in today's society, especially in the USA, where we're all encouraged, as fellow citizens, to share in the common defense of our nation, and to individually and collectively own property and prosper by developing it, etc. A great development, historically speaking, in my opinion, but it does seem to encourage more citizens to feel as though they have a right to tyrannize others, because of their wide opportunity to choose how to live their own lives as they see fit, and the necessities that implies (versus having some totalitarian government figure it all out for us).

How the hell did that turn into an argument about abortions, gun control, tyrants, Waco, etc.?

They sprang from examples I gave of laws being used for purposes well beyond what they were intended to be used for, or for which they were advertised. That was the point of this discussion, remember? Whether such unintended consequences might be a concern?

The ringing truth of this debate is that you aren't so much unwilling to consider unintended consequences of laws, you actually seem to thrive, at least psychologically, on them, because they feed into your desire to impose your will on others.

So, it doesn't matter to you whether RICO was intended to target non-mafia-like organizations such as Operation Rescue, or ADA was intended to be used as an opportunity to rewrite rules of professional sports, or gun-control legislation was intended to be used as a means to launch an all-out assault on an obscure far-right Christian cult -- all that matters to you was that "the right thing happened". (Please, correct me simply and directly if I'm wrong -- I'm basing this on your steadfast refusal to back down on any of these issues and agree that concerns about abuse of law aren't inherently illegitimate, anti-government, etc.)

So the original poster was dead-on. People like you will say "let's pass anti-spam legislation now", then celebrate when that legislation is contorted to prosecute some group, or disadvantaged individual, who didn't actually spam, but who may conceivably be claimed to have broken some tiny letter of that law.

You need psychological counseling.

As a tyrant-wannabe, I'm sure you'll consider various ways to impose it on me. Whether I truly need it is beside the question in your mind; you're far less concerned about how I conduct my life, how I treat my friends, my wife, to what charities I contribute, whether I'm law-abiding, hard-working, thoughtful, resourceful, than you are over the fact that I'm disagreeing with you and pointing out what the facts are regarding your advocacy in this thread.

"Morality policing?" You mean things like the religious right trying to ban[I assume you mean to put a colon here:] abortions

Yes.

same sex marriages

Yes, though, here, the question is, what business does government have telling people what constitutes a marriage at all and impose any requirements on others vis-a-vis the marriage covenant?

needle exchange programs for drug addicts

Of course. If people want to offer needles to addicts, what business is it of anyone else's? Ditto for condoms...and, in a strictly technical sense at least, for guns as well!

gays in the military

Yes.

sex education in schools

Private or public? Private, certainly; those schools and the parents who send their students there can decide for themselves what and how to teach. Public, similar, except the question is raised, if the government forces people to send their children to public schools (and especially if it doesn't offer real choice via vouchers or something), it's not seethingly evil to try to get the schools to not teach one's own child things outside of one's religious convictions.

and medical-marijuana use for terminal cancer patients?

Oh, of course. This is a no-brainer anyway; does anyone really fear terminal cancer patients "graduating" to drugs like heroin and crack, and running around knocking over convenience stores to pay for their next fix? Sheesh. Don't get me started on the whole "drug war" anyway; about the only thing conceivably bloodier, domestically, would be a war against guns.

You are rude, insulting, and totally without honor. You have called me names and made slanderous accusations. If this is your idea of Christianity, I'm proud to be an atheist.

Being a Christian doesn't mean never being rude, nor avoiding saying things interpreted as being insulting. I do have honor, since I believe everything I said is clearly backed up by the evidence on hand, and since I never claimed you couldn't be healed of your tyrannical urges. As far as "proud to be an atheist", well, I'll let that stand as an advertisement for atheism, coming from someone with such deeply-held tyrannical convictions.

As a Christian, I'm willing to die for my ideals.

The world will be a better place for all of us if you make good on that -- for if you continue on the path you've started down, I fear that you you will be capable of unspeakable acts of violence.

I'll also let that stand as an advertisement for atheism -- publically stating that the world would be a better place if I just up and died. Maybe I'll show your comment to my wife, my mother, my sister, her husband -- I've occasionally tried to convince them that tyranny itself is one of the root causes of evil, and that attacking it -- not individual people, not their freedom to choose how to live -- would yield the most violent reaction, as was experienced by Jesus, who challenged the validity of the tyrannical rule of the Romans and the Jewish leaders of his time. You seem to be bearing out my "prophecy" in speech.

It's also interesting to note that you claim I'm capable of unspeakable violence because I'm willing to die for my beliefs. Is it also your claim that you are not capable of unspeakable violence? Why not -- is it because you're an atheist? Because you prefer to leave the dirty job of committing violence to impose your beliefs on others to hired help, such as policeman and military men? A combination of both, perhaps?

E.g. would you be capable of merely ordering unspeakable acts of violence be committed against someone, even if you couldn't consider committing the acts by your own hand?

If not, how about if you were merely one of several people who voted on whether to issue such an order -- would you be capable of voting in favor of ordering unspeakable violence?

If not, how about simply speaking up and "being counted" -- do you have it in you to simply say "it would be great if so-and-so were dead", knowing your speech might set in motion the acts necessary to bring that about, just as a mafia Don might?

At some point in there, you've got to admit the answer is "yes", since you've already done it. And my whole point is, if you're willing to "will" it, you might as well admit you're willing to "do" it, except for your own distaste for gruesome matters and/or your desire to avoid being seen by others as actually carrying out those acts.

Whereas I, someone willing to commit violence on behalf of the State until not long ago (e.g. consider enlisting during Desert Storm, despite being of little use as a "fighter" in the pertinent sense), no longer believes it valid according to his religion, says so, and is now told, by an atheist no less, that the world would be better off if he up and died.

And you're trying to convince me I'm being a bad Christian, by saying such things? Hmm, I know you're an atheist and all, but you might find more persuasive ways to get your points across if you actually learned the story of Christ Jesus first. For example, instead of suggesting I'd be better off dying for my cause, you might pat me on the back and tell me I'm mightily appreciated for my thoughtful posts -- that's the sort of thing that really puts die-hard followers of Christ Jesus off their feed, especially coming from an atheist. ;-)

Anyone who would find any justification for the acts of Timothy McVeigh or the Operation Rescue murderers is a sick and dangerous man.

And, of course, I did no such thing. Again, I pointed out that these cases involved legislation beyond what the intent of its authors likely was, and how extreme the results are.

The same thing applies, of course, to tyrant-wannabes who style themselves "Christian" as a means to gain power.

(And it seems to me that you've implicitly justified events such as the Waco invasion, Ruby Ridge, and so on, by continuing to fight against legitimate concerns that well-intentioned laws might be twisted by government to the detriment, even death, of innocents.)

But, whether tyrants call themselves "priest" or "king" to gain power, they worship tyranny, first and foremost. They may claim to be compassionate, intelligent, wise, clever, etc., but their first priority is to rule.

And, the careful reader will note that I never, in this thread, advocated any form of violence, or threat of violence, against you or others who believe as you do. I warned you that you might have to face it for your beliefs, as I readily admitted I realized I (and, in fact, we all) do, but that's hardly the same thing.

Yet, true to most any tyrant, you've not only lied about what you've said and others (the SC) have done, you've plainly advocated violence against me, claiming the world would be a better place if I were dead.

I leave it to the thoughtful, compassionate reader to decide for himself whose belief system better represents a promise for a peaceful world.

All that being said, I realize it's quite likely that the evident hatred you direct towards me comes not from anything personal per se -- since you really don't know anything about me (or at least I'm hoping that, for example, you don't have a visceral hatred for the Fortran programming language ;-) -- but stem from a typical reaction to being "called out" on moral grounds and not finding anything reassuringly solid to grab onto except the hope that an innocent person might die, and/or fearing that someone as assured of the beliefs he espouses as you clearly imagine me to be, since those beliefs differ from yours, must necessarily constitute a threat to you, or perhaps to the world as a whole.

So, however you were feeling when you posted that, and however this post makes you feel, rest assured that you are loved by God, by His Christ, and, therefore, God willing, by me, and that I intend to never commit violence against you or your family, and pray that someday I might find some means to do a practical good deed for you or someone you care about.

God bless you.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Mordanthanus]

Are you trying to tell us that you would not (or shold not, I should say) be prosecuted if, let's say, you stood in the middle of a mall or school, and commenced screaming at the top of your lungs about "horse fucking"? If that is what you believe, then you are really just a moron using big words.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

"Washington's Anti-Spam law was struck down in federal court, apparently it was an illegal attempt to curb free speech"

Why not use your name so we can ALL know firsthand who has zero knowledge on the subject.

Whoops... maybe you're a spammer, and we all know spammers lie all the time.

No Fed court, no struck down, no soup for you.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Mr. Slippery]

Are you trying to tell us that you would not (or shold not, I should say) be prosecuted if, let's say, you stood in the middle of a mall or school, and commenced screaming at the top of your lungs about "horse fucking"?

If you're shouting and carrying on in a public place - about anything - you can rightly be arrested and prosecuted for disturbing the peace. The content is irrelvent; doesn't matter if you're shouting about horse fucking or preaching the Sermon on the Mount. The state can, to some degree, regulate time, place, and manner of speech, not the content.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Bob_Robertson]

"Republican" anti-government?

That's absurd. Republicans love big government as much as anyone. Just look at how big the budgets get when Republicans control both houses of government.

Simple math. Another would be a ratio of "new laws" to "laws repealed".

It is you who committed an act of hate-speach by labeling Republicans as "anti-government".

Personally, I can't stand either side of the party of government control, "D" or "R".

Bob-

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

How much energy (electricity) is used in maintaining the always-on internet? What percentage of the gross network traffic (average over time) can we estimate spam to consume? Certainly we can translate the energy into reems of paper we'd have to burn to keep the internet powered---and we can compare that number to the estimated reems of paper consumed in producing unsolicited junk mail.

That's the sort of analysis which would have to be done to justify the blanket statement of one form of the nuissance being more costly than another.

[At least junk snail mail may be recyclable ;-> ]

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[7dragon]

Large numbers of people are not going to go. Either you think it's a good idea or not.
Screw everybody else. I'm tired of these friggin spammers. I'm going to do want I can to make them
regret bothering me.

Nice lemming mentality you have there.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[dytin]

"If you don't want spam, don't use email." What the f??? kind of logic is that?

It's the truth isn't it? If you stop using email, you will stop getting spam. However, I never said that it is the only solution to stopping spam. But it is A solution, government intervention is not. Government imposing their will on us will not succesfully thwart spam, but it will lead to less personal freedom and make it more difficult to conduct business.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Mike McCune]

Hell, I just bounce any spam that I get. It plugs up the spammer's mailbox and makes them think that they have an invalid email address (easy to do if you run your own mail server - www.postfix.org). Now if any spammer is stupid enough to put an 800 number on their email...!

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

You win.

I just can't justify getting involved in any more of this long, off-topic flame fest. Basides, I have to go quit my job and take my life's savings to create a golf association that doesn't discriminate against handicapped players.

Maybe after I finish that, I can get back to being a tyrant...

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

dont forget "FREE PENIS ENLARGEMENT"

I've tried my hand at that...

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear fmaxwell,

I concur.

cburley wins!!!
in fact, he kicked your A$$!!!

"I just can't justify getting involved in any more of this long, off-topic flame fest"

LOL! I love it! You have just described ALL OF SLASHDOT!

What a well chosen parting rejoinder, its idiocy topping all your previous moronic statements in much the same way a cherry tops a chocolate fudge sundae.
Gee whiz, somehow the word "fudge" is reminding me of your argumentation skilz.

It's as if you believe that your original post was somehow a worthwile contribution and cburley's retorts were just an annoying diversion.

HEY GUY! your post was the first flame on this topic. incredibly, this was modded up to "score 4, Interesting".
If your knee-jerk, hot-headed troll flames are so crucial to Slashdot, aren't the level-headed, oh-so-patient attempts to skool your sorry ass at least worth a reply?

You should thank cburley for politely attempting to help you shed some of your sophomoric attitude and thereby lessen the inevitable regret you'll feel one day in the (far) future when you realize how many years of your life you wasted being a stupid ass.

As a practical aside, you might note that in many oppressive societies, outspoken, hotheaded loudmouths are marginalized, imprisoned, or in some cases killed by their own government. In my estimation, a person like yourself has much to worry about in such a society and it would be to your benefit to quit helping them tighten the noose around your neck.

Regards,

The Anonymous Coward

P.S. How does it make you feel for me to post this anonymously? Slashdot is a fun playground, but imagine if all aspects of your life could be observed anonymously and people could silently pass judgement on you without ever giving you a chance to fight back or even know your accuser? Fun huh?

P.S. to cburley. If you're reading this, GOOD JOB! Isn't it cool how your kick-ass posts got modded to jack squat? I L0VE SLASHD0T!!!111

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[pheonix]

Which brings you back to the point...make forging the header information illegal, as it is just that, forgery. Don't make spam illegal because it is genuinely abusable by the government. If you don't think that the government WILL abuse its power, review the UCITA and DMCA briefly and see what you think...

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[pheonix]

How is a professional golfer supposed to earn a living by "purchasing, renting, or borrowing land" on which to play golf? He's a golfer, not an investment banker. And, like it or not, the PGA is the only game in town for professional golfers -- just as the NBA is for pro basketball players. The rules weren't "changed". The PGA was just required to make a reasonable accomodation for a handicapped player. Golf is about hitting a ball into a hole, not about walking and that's what the Supreme Court decided.

The rules absolutely were changed. Carts were expressly forbidden on a PGA tournament course until this disabled golfer imposed his "civil liberties" on them.

As for "How is a professional golfer supposed to earn a living by "purchasing, renting, or borrowing land" on which to play golf?", I don't remember my inalienable right to make a living at professional sports, but I'm sure it's in the constitution, right? I mean, I'd really like to play hockey, but I can't skate, so can I sue to play sans ice? How can I, a professional basketball player, make my living if they insist on placing the hoops too high for my 5'11" ass to slam dunk on? Can I sue to get them lowered?

It's people like you that make life disturbingly difficult for intelligent people.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[pyramid termite]

Ahh, so one can be arrested for "horse fucking" talk in public, where one is not trespassing, but not in my house, where one is.

Another psuedo intellectual troll contradicts himself into a singularity. Bye.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[pyramid termite]

I don't see anything in the First Amendment that says "unless a kid happens to be listening". Any such law is prima facie unconstitutional.

Funny, there's a lot of cops and judges in this country who disagree with you. Go ahead, talk about horse fucking to a kid in front of a cop and see where you wind up.

Falacy of extended analogy. Your e-mail spool isn't even a real thing,

And therefore cannot be a public place, as I stated.

All half-digested logic, no common sense.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

It's as if you believe that your original post was somehow a worthwile contribution and cburley's retorts were just an annoying diversion.

That is what I believe. And the moderators, for the most part, agreed with me.

If your knee-jerk, hot-headed troll flames are so crucial to Slashdot, aren't the level-headed, oh-so-patient attempts to skool your sorry ass at least worth a reply?

I gave Mr. Burley the courtesy of several replies and he only became more irrational and long-winded, ignoring important points I made while trying to attack out-of-context quotes. Unfortunately, he is not as intelligent as I am, nor is he a skilled debater, so his attempts to "skool" me were simply a waste of my time.

As a practical aside, you might note that in many oppressive societies, outspoken, hotheaded loudmouths are marginalized, imprisoned, or in some cases killed by their own government.

So you think that I would be marginalized, imprisoned, or killed by my government because I posted something on Slashdot that was pro-government? And Mr. Burley, after his violently anti-government statements, would have fared how? You aren't very bright, are you?

How does it make you feel for me to post this anonymously?

No matter how you posted, you'd still be anonymous. It's not like any of us have ever heard of you in real life -- or ever will.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

Carts were expressly forbidden on a PGA tournament course until this disabled golfer imposed his "civil liberties" on them.

Supreme Court Justice Stevens, an avid golfer, said the walking requirement is "at best peripheral" to PGA Tour events. And in any case, Stevens wrote, if the purpose of walking is to tax golfers' stamina, Martin's disability does that for him.

It's people like you that make life disturbingly difficult for intelligent people.

Yeah, it must suck to just be "intelligent" and have to deal with someone who's so far above you.

P.S. I seriously doubt that you are nearly as intelligent as any of the seven Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor of golfer Casey Martin.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Mr. Slippery]

Funny, there's a lot of cops and judges in this country who disagree with you.

Point being? Courts have held many strange beliefs over the years; persons of dark skin can't be citizens, the power to regulate interstate commerce includes the authority for stormtroopers to bust down your door if they think you're growing cannabis for personal consumption, that citizens of Japanese descent weren't entitled to civil rights, and that "make no law" restricting free speech somehow means "make all sorts of laws about speech we don't like".

But the illiteracy of courts does not change the text of the First Amendment.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[robbway]

Thanks for both comments. The legal case is a very important one. What I meant was: Though it is an interpretation of the Constitution, it is not explicitly in there. If I read that correctly, anti-spam legislation is effectively rendered impotent by this ruling.

I have caller ID on my phone. I have filters on my e-mail. I recycle unsolicited junkmail. I'm paying for all that.

The junkmail costs so much, that only the serious junkmailers send.

The e-mail filter doesn't work well, and I'm afraid to use accept-only because people change e-mail all the time, and I may receive friendly e-mail in the future. The spammers use name generators and alter the headers.

The caller ID is the most effective one. Num Blocked? Don't answer. Number Unknown? Don't answer. John K. Rutherford? Don't know, don't care. I also erase unsolicited voice mail before I hear it.

I think it's clear I'm losing the battle. I feel that 100% mandatory identification of businesses, including government agencies, on all communication would easily clear some of this up.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[CrackWilding]

Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop.

No they won't. I haven't replied to a spammer in years, and I get more spam now than I ever have. I would guess I get 40-60 pieces of spam a day.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[benedict]

If you start collecting your $500 prizes, I bet you'll see a reduction in spam as spammers start taking you off of their lists post-haste.

That disclaimer is very funny.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[benedict]

Fraud over telephone lines isn't legal either. Are you going to tell me there's no "telephone community"? There is: it probably includes almost everyone in the industrialized world.

I'm so sick of the "regulation is baa-aa-aa-d" Slashdot orthodoxy. It's so thoughtless and unconsidered.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[cburley]

You should thank cburley for politely attempting to help you shed some of your sophomoric attitude and thereby lessen the inevitable regret you'll feel one day in the (far) future when you realize how many years of your life you wasted being a stupid ass.

For what it's worth, I wish I could thank those who politely (or otherwise) helped me become less of a "stupid ass". There's very little I've written in this thread that isn't a rebuke to how I thought, reasoned, and even debated just a few short years ago.

As a practical aside, you might note that in many oppressive societies, outspoken, hotheaded loudmouths are marginalized, imprisoned, or in some cases killed by their own government. In my estimation, a person like yourself has much to worry about in such a society and it would be to your benefit to quit helping them tighten the noose around your neck.

Hate to rain on your parade, but history suggests that it's much more likely that I would be the target of such treatment than fmaxwell. Jesus, Ghandi, MLKJr, and the like weren't killed for proposing legislation, going along with the status quo, and such. (I'm clearly not in their league, but you can see how vicious and violent a reaction my writings, stressing the importance of nonviolence, trigger in someone who sees himself as a conforming member of the prevailing establishment.) Scale my writings and effect up, and the corresponding reactions would scale up similarly.

And if you think atheists like fmaxwell are most likely the culprits, I'm not sure I'd agree. In practice, the most likely "assassins" of people preaching practical nonviolence (which must necessarily start in an individual by eliminating his own tyrannical thinking) are those of his own "stripe".

After all, fmaxwell and other atheists (and I've recently taken on several of them on /., and they also ended up leaving the discussion without answering key questions -- see Malcontent and junkgrep) can more easily turn away from such debate with a Christian and still remain cohorts, validating each other's belief (or nonbelief ;-), celebrating each other's status, and so on.

On the other hand, someone who calls themselves "Christian" and takes on power is not only as likely as fmaxwell to see my arguments as a threat to his potential tyrannies, but has to also fear that, by associating my beliefs with Christianity, I delegitimize him to an extent I don't delegitimize an atheist.

(More likely, a follower of such a tyrant Christian would be the doer of such a deed, with or without the approval of his idol.)

Labels -- such as "atheist", "Christian", "tyrant", "compassionate" -- though abstractions, are potent ones to humans, and they tend to find much comfort by defining themselves in terms of them -- those they attach to themselves as well as those they evidently hold at arms' length.

Besides, as 20th-Century history showed, Christians are far more likely to be murdered by atheists than vice versa. So, really, fmaxwell should sleep well, unafraid of the threats he apparently (irrationally?) believes I pose to him and the world he so loves.

Of course, none of this is likely to really be an issue for either of us. If a career offending people such as fmaxwell or even being a pompous, self-righteous jerk (as you believe he's been, and I'm inclined to agree ;-) was a strong predictor of a violent death, I'd have been dismembered by wolves years ago.

What I hope for, instead, is that my writings might help inspire some to provide more rational, thoughtful responses to the kind of arguments and threats posed by people such as fmaxwell, and that those so inspired give me, and crediting me, not even the first thought, much less the second.

to cburley. If you're reading this, GOOD JOB! Isn't it cool how your kick-ass posts got modded to jack squat?

Thanks for the compliment! And, given the distance this thread strayed from the topic and their rejection of the various dominant mind-sets on /., it's remarkable to me that they've not been modded down more than they have. IMO, the moderators, as a group, have been rather generous, sufficient enough to offset both rational ("this is getting offtopic") and irrational ("he's kicking my sacred cow") negative mods.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this ID to mess with them:

Timothy McVeigh
1 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as if you believe that your original post was somehow a worthwile contribution and cburley's retorts were just an annoying diversion.

That is what I believe. And the moderators, for the most part, agreed with me.

So you think that Slashdot is all about sucking ass to moderators? Thankfully, cburley does not care what others think as much. Much of his freedom derives from his attitude. You however are enslaved by your need for outside approval and thus are unconcerned if further freedoms are stripped.

If your knee-jerk, hot-headed troll flames are so crucial to Slashdot, aren't the level-headed, oh-so-patient attempts to skool your sorry ass at least worth a reply?

I gave Mr. Burley the courtesy of several replies and he only became more irrational and long-winded, ignoring important points I made while trying to attack out-of-context quotes. Unfortunately, he is not as intelligent as I am, nor is he a skilled debater, so his attempts to "skool" me were simply a waste of my time.

Debate is the crude instrument of advocacy and, for an example, is the basis of our legal and political systems; systems that have proven themselves easily corrupted by the cynicism of their practitioners and the apathy of the citizen. Debate is unable to discern the simplest truth, yet you gleefully brag of your prowess in this dark art.

As you are fully aware, cburley is at least as intelligent as you, and is most likely a far more skilled debater than you. He has chosen to keep his sword in his sheath, unlike you, and you reward his benevolence with further jabs.

This may rattle around indefinitely within your anencephalic skull-case, but cburley is not trying to win a debate, he's trying to reason with a hot-headed fool who is blithely digging us further into the stinky morass of taxes, laws, and loss of privacy that fits us all with shackles that are stronger than any steel.

As a practical aside, you might note that in many oppressive societies, outspoken, hotheaded loudmouths are marginalized, imprisoned, or in some cases killed by their own government.

So you think that I would be marginalized, imprisoned, or killed by my government because I posted something on Slashdot that was pro-government?

No. Slashdot is in this country, where the battle over freedom is still being fought, not in a completely oppressive society like the ones you can find in the CIA world factbook. This war is fought by people like cburley against people like YOU! When it is all over, and your kind has won, then you would get in trouble for posting on slashdot, except you won't be able to, because it won't exist anymore.

And Mr. Burley, after his violently anti-government statements, would have fared how? You aren't very bright, are you?

You're right. I said "outspoken, hot-headed loudmouths". I left out "intelligent". As you fail that test, you can rest assured that you will be spared during the first culling.

Anyway, my cynical twit, I cede this point after hearing cburley's argument which, incidentally, points out that it is YOU or your ilk who shall be his assassin. But wow! You are one cold bastard. You're arguing that cburley will be killed and you're happy about it?! Don't you realize that after they get him, you'll be next?

How does it make you feel for me to post this anonymously?

No matter how you posted, you'd still be anonymous. It's not like any of us have ever heard of you in real life -- or ever will.

I get your point. Apparently you choose to ignore mine. I wish I could say that it's your loss, but I can't because it is mine as well. Fighting tyranny is a team sport.

-The Anonymous Coward

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Twanfox]

Frankly, I don't feel stupid. I feel uninformed. I feel more informed now.

How many other people know that you can do this? And does it take away the problem of rejecting all bulk mail to your place, or just those listed as to 'Resident'? When did they plan to advertise the whole 'opt out' from the direct marketing scheme?

Oh wait, they don't want to advertise that you can get away from advertisements (irony?) because it stunts commercial development (gasp).

Wonder when they're going to start an 'opt-in', where you willingly subject yourself to ads from a particular company, instead of forcing you to opt out if you don't want it.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

fmaxwell,

you continue to stupefy me with your chuckleheaded verbal secretions.

- The Anonymous Coward

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[fmaxwell]

you continue to stupefy me

Stupefy: 1. To make stupid; to make dull; to blunt the faculty of perception or understanding in; to deprive of sensibility; to make torpid.

I think you need to blame your parents and schooling for that.

Re:Actually do something and I'll be impressed

[pheonix]

Ahh, of course, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the PGA rule book must be an accurate representation of the motives of those that actually created those rules, right? Umm...wait, that's idiotic...that must not be what you meant....my bad.

Your account is seriously past due...

[rela]

Ha, I just wish I could have seen their faces...someone didn't back down in fear!

Spammers

[WickedClean]

Speaking of spammers, I have gotten more junk mail this past month, trying to trick me into changing registrars for a couple of domains that expire in November and December. I have gotten 4 different letters from Register.com, as well as about a half dozen emails from Register.com or their affiliates. I had always thought they were a big company and above sending spam, but I guessed wrong.

One thing I would like to see is to make it illegal for these so-called 'companies' to sell mailing lists. They are selling people's personal information! I know, I know - wishful thinking....

Re:Spammers

[WickedClean]

Am I wrong in thinking it is still ok to tell telemarketers to eat the poo fresh out of my butt? I always thought that if they called you, then you have the right to tell them off. I wonder if that lawyer is a REAL lawyer...the spammer could just have whipped up a fake letterhead.

Re:Spammers

[OmegaDan]

I've gotten these same emails and snail mails, they're definatley not cool ...

interestingly enuf last year I registered a set of com/net/org domains for a project and got a phone call at my home from some business wanting to sell me their web services cuz they "noticed" I registered these domains ...

Re:Spammers

[spectral]

I dunno, I got one telemarketer to go through all his stuff, then he wanted to send me something, and asked for my address.. so I told him to send it to his own, he wasn't sure how that'd help me.. I told him that I wasn't interested in the literature, I thought he might since he spoke so highly of it. I then paused a second, and asked to be removed from their list. He started swearing at me and telling me he was going to come and kill me and my family and all this other stuff and hung up on me :)

Re:Spammers

[psychalgia]

registrars need simply to access whois.net to get these mailing lists...the sale of your information is not necessary, you provided it for free to the entire world on registration.

Re:Spammers

[Pathwalker]

For a while (about 6 months) whenever I had a telemarketer call, I would explain that I was busy, and ask them for a number at which I could call them back.

Only one actually left a number - I looked it up on Google, and got a hit. It turned out that they were an artist, who I would assume was doing telemarketing as their day job. It really weirded them out when I commented on one of their paintings when I called them back :-)

Nowdays, I don't deal with telemarketers - I leave the phone off the hook most of the day, as I work nights.
Spammers I just stick in /etc/smtp.cdb and never hear from again...

Re:Spammers

[debolaz]

You ought to see my mailbox, 70% of all spam there is from VeriSign (Network Solutions).

Re:Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

whois data is specifically not to be used for commercial purposes.

Re:Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I would like to see is to make it illegal for these so-called 'companies' to sell mailing lists. They are selling people's personal information! I know, I know - wishful thinking....

In this case they probably didn't need to buy/sell a mailing list - they could just scan the whois databases. I'm sure some of the spam I get re: domains is due to this [either that or 123reg.co.uk have sold my details...]

Re:Spammers

[Tony Hoyle]

In the UK we have legally enforcable telemarketing opt-out lists (http://www.tpsonline.co.uk). They seem to mostly work, apart from a few lamers.

A couple of weeks ago we had a call from a bunch of idiots who'd obviously just gone through the telephone directory.

Phone rings. My wife answers, and after listening to the speil asks for the callers name. He gives it. She then asks for the callers address... He gives it! Then she asks for the callers telephone number. At this point he gets suspicious and asks why. "Because I need the information to report you to the TPS". Amazingly, this satisfied him & he asked his collegue for the phone number!

It gets better. He couldn't find the number but promised to call back.

10 minutes later - he called back! With the correct number!

15 minutes later he called *again* and starts all over again - this time asking for me... it hadn't clicked that there are two people living in this house with the same last name & telephone number.
Given the level of the fines that the TPS can levy (Minimum of £10,000 per call) I suspect the guy is currently unemployed...

Re:Spammers

[Tony Hoyle]

Oops that's www.tpsonline.org.uk The co.uk has been grabbed by a particulaly lame squatter.

Re:Spammers

[Daengbo]

My Ex's mother, when confronted with a telemarketer, took the bull by the horns and began to ask all the telemarketer wuestions: Name, Address, Ph, SS Number, etc, until they just hung up.

Re:Spammers

[Monoman]

I would like to see it mandatory for the "supposed" legitimate opt-in spammers to disclose in the emails the source of the opt-in.

I have gotten so much spam in the last month or two... most of which claims I have opted in, which I know is pure B.S.

Re:Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, be nice to telemarketers, but firm. Spammers
are one or two nasty people who get a list of
email addys, then press a big red button. While
Telemarketers are irritating, remember.. the person you're actually talking to is some poor
soul who works for a living probably making at most 7$USD/hr to be cursed at, yelled at, and
hung up on.

Re:Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

ok... not to play devil's advocate or anything, but if you're here, you're a geek & should know better. register.com doesn't NEED to sell our addresses and probably does not. anyone with minimal programming can write a program to harvest 'whois' information that regster.com and EVERY registrar is required by law to make public.. there are enough OTHER LEGITIMATE reasons to hate register.com without accusing them of something silly like selling something that both you and i can get simply by typing 'whois'.

Re:Spammers

[linuxelf]

One of these guys, interland.com, sent me a nice snailmail letter bearing the Network Solutions(my registrar) logo. I called them and they told me that they were now the billing agent for Network Solutions, and that Network Solutions no longer handled that part of their business, so I re-registered with interland. Interland then sent me email with a form that I had to fill out to authorize them to transfer my domain to interland. I contacted Network Solutions, they said they were still doing their own billing. It took me months to get interland to refund my money.

Re:Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have taken this case to law enforcement... it sounds like outright felony fraud.

Re:Spammers

[blang]

Same thing here, but they're not going to get my business. Who is lame enough to pay $35 per year?

I bough my domain at domainstore.com, for around $15 per year. So when it was time to renew, I went back to the site, and now they were going to charge me $35 per year, or $30 for a transfer. No way Jose.
Turns out they've been bought up by one of the big ones (registrars.com I think).

Luckily, my name is so unusual that I can let the domain expire, and get a .com or .net instead of the .org I have. And this time around I'll register for 10 years, at one of the cheapo registrars that charge $8 a year.

Re:Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

So I should feel sorry for some lame excuse for humanity that doesn't have the skills to get a job that DOESN'T involve harassing people constantly?

Should I also feel sorry for homeless people who run up to you in the park and piss on your leg for a dollar because the frat boys find it amusing? After all, they're just doing their job, and it's thankless work, isn't it?

Asswipe. Some people just don't deserve compassion. If you take a job as a telemarketer and don't like getting yelled at, too fucking bad - switch careers.

Re:Spammers

[danb35]

I wonder if that lawyer is a REAL lawyer

According to Martindale-Hubbell, an international directory of attorneys, he is. He's apparently been licensed for about 20 years, and has his office in Portland, OR.

Re:Spammers

[psychalgia]

argh -- the point is, there is no sale of your data -- you provide it for free to a public database. You are specifically not supposed to cheat on your taxes or speed -- who here doesnt do both on a regular basis? See my point?

Re:Spammers

[WillSeattle]

Speaking of spammers, I have gotten more junk mail this past month, trying to trick me into changing registrars for a couple of domains that expire in November and December. I have gotten 4 different letters from Register.com, as well as about a half dozen emails from Register.com or their affiliates. I had always thought they were a big company and above sending spam, but I guessed wrong.

I've had the same thing happen to me as well.

-

Maybe he should also bill the lawyers also

[Anonymous Coward]

for the time they wasted too!

already slashdotted?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's hardly even any comments and farces.com appears to be down. just afaik.

Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

So one spammer has the nerve to come out and threaten one of his victims with a legal lawsuit. Next thing you know they'll be claiming that they're legally entitled to waste our time and that we're obligated to listen to their horseshit. Then again, businesses have been developing this irritating attitude that they own us.

KABLOOEY! Slashdotted.

[Sarcasmooo!]

Is that a record?

Re:KABLOOEY! Slashdotted.

[Anonymous Coward]

2:00 a.m on a Sunday, i think so. I'm unemployed, what about everyone else?

Re:KABLOOEY! Slashdotted.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the copy from google's cache.

Re:KABLOOEY! Slashdotted.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I am unemployed, on a disability pension actually, so all I have to do is eat, sleep, and post crap on slashdot all day, everyday.

Life doesn't get any better. Actually it does. I'd trade my disability for normality in a heartbeat.

Re:KABLOOEY! Slashdotted.

[Anonymous Coward]

would it be too much for the poster of the article to actually include some part of the main link? as of this posting, noone has received an insightful/informative moderation - which is not suprising, given that its pretty hard to be insightful about something you can't access...
surely people have been aware of the "slashdot effect" long enough that this should be a non-issue by now?

Re:KABLOOEY! Slashdotted.

[Anonymous Coward]

They closed up shop in an attempt to fan off slashdot readers

"So you want to sue a spammer"

[IvyMike]

There's an outfit called "Private Citizen that helps you receive less (snail) junk mail and fewer telemarketing calls. The sell a book called So You Want To Sue A Telemarketer. I sure hope that they come out with the "Sue A Spammer" edition of this book soon. Even though I think too many people are quick to sue in this country, I can't think of anybody who deserves a lawsuit more than the spreaders of spam.

People too cheap (ok, "frugal") to spend money at Private Citizen can try following the advice at Junkbusters, and they even have a page concerning spam.

Re:"So you want to sue a spammer"

[sasha328]

Alternatively, you can get yourself a Law Degree:

A University Diploma is waiting for you.

Obtain a prosperous future, money earning power,
and the admiration of all.

Select your field of study from business, computers,
engineering, education, the sciences, liberal arts,
fine arts, social sciences, history, literature,
languages, or any other discipline.

No required tests, classes, books, or interviews.

All levels of diplomas awarded - including bachelors,
masters, PhD's, and MBA's.

Diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities
based on your present knowledge and life experience.

Open enrollment means that you are already
accepted into this unique program.

Someone is always waiting to take your call -
24 hours a day, 7 days a week including weekends.

All you have to do is call to insure your future!

1 - 2 1 2 - 2 1 4 - 0 6 6 9 (U.S.A)

OR CALL

1 - 4 1 0 - 5 1 0 - 1 0 7 8

All calls kept strictly confidential.


That is always the best spam I get. Makes you wonder how many people actually use this service?

Re:"So you want to sue a spammer"

[jon doh!]

there was a 20/20 (or primetime live, i forget which) show where they looked at the people who bought/sold these diplomas. the guy who sold them was rolling in money, i forget why people bought them though. i guess depending on the price, it might be a good novelty gift for someone.

Re:"So you want to sue a spammer"

[ErikZ]

People buy them cause many employeers don't check the name of the "Univeristy" against a list of known diploma mills.

I know a guy who's having a great time at his job after getting his "Masters"

Re:"So you want to sue a spammer"

[Organic_Info]

There is another avenue of approach to suing rather than just the lost time, money, internet service etc. in that the inappropriate material that could be/is being sent to children. My girlfriend has a somewhat very popular e-mail address for being spammed and as I clear her mailbox of crap there would be no way on earth I'd give my child an e-mail account given the nature of most of the SPAM that is received.

I'm partial to viewing the odd bit of online nudity ;) and as an adult that is my decision - however I certainly don't think children should be exposed to the barrage of "See the dirtiest sluts on the web" or "Get you video of Britney being gang banged". That surely has legal grounds of exposing minors to indecent material.

And [just rant on a bit more] as the largest subscribers you would think that MSN/AOL/YAHOO + the other alliance members who could do so much more to protect their members. For example how MSN/Hotmail allows hundreds of SPAM mails to enter accounts with subject headings similar to those mentioned above is pathetic. If you want to receive adult related material to that account make it an opt in option. E-mail looks like its going to become a deny all except *filtered choices* unless it becomes un-economical to SPAM.

We are the technical minded we should do more to stop this. Fight the evil fellow Slashdoters.
.

Re:"So you want to sue a spammer"

[CaptainSuperBoy]

The funniest part is "prestigious non-accredited universities." They're already spamming, why not lie? Are they going to get in any more trouble if they leave out the part about being non-accredited?

Mirrors anyone?

[bubba dick]

Well? Any mirrors?

Re:Exposing CmdrTaco for all he's worth

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you aren't fully unconcious until you've eaten the whole taco, there wouldn't be any left for him to force feed you! It seems like your warning is lacking in logic! But, I will beware the special taco.

On the other hand, how do we know that you won't start spamming slashdotters with a website that advertises an "anti-special-taco" elixer! Perhaps that elixer is really something that makes people zombify and walk to your house, where you feed them the WeatherTroll "special chimichanga?" Beware the WeatherTroll chimichanga!

Google cache

[Milinar]

Seems slashdotted... try:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:R7VWyB6BrGM :w ww.farces.com/farces/999462920/index_html

Re:Google cache

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better yet:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.farces.co m/farces/999462920/index_html.

(It didn't work when I left in the R7VW... stuff)

Re:Google cache

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, that's the original article, not the new one with the lawyers involved...

Mirrors?

[Wayne247]

Well i found this article dated September 2nd which appears to be the one being submitted today. So happy caching

anti-slash??

[JDizzy]

What gives whit the insta-broken links?

I mean, its one things to see a site get slash-dot'ed, but yet another to see a site gone the moment slashdot posts the link. What gives? Maybe that spam-canon's lawyer has more pull/push than we think.... I mean.. to get the site slashed before slashdot can... talk about power!!

Spammer's Real Address

[istartedi]

How do you get it? I've always wanted to send them bills, but I always figured getting the real addrress would be too time consuming.

Re:Spammer's Real Address

[smackmonkey]

Will karma suicide lead me to salvation and eternal life in Trolls' Paradise? Do I get 70-something virgins and 70-something wives to hand-feed me grapes and whatnot?

Re:Spammer's Real Address

[stud9920]

(Score: -1, Offtopic)
You can do much better : wait till you're moderator, choose some random regular poster, and bitchslap him ! If you do all of this to the same person, the /. scripts will see it, and reset YOU karma to 0. (Did that)

Re:Spammer's Real Address

[Darth RadaR]

Do I get 70-something virgins and 70-something wives to hand-feed me grapes and whatnot?

I don't think I'd want a virgin that was in her 70s.
:)

Re:Spammer's Real Address

[cgleba]

1. Read ALL your mail headers -- not just the FROM: line. Look particuarly at the Recieved: lines and note where the mail really came from.

1(a). If necessary check the mail logs on your SMTP server to see exactly what IP connected to you to send the message.

2. Do a 'whois' query on the transit SMTP servers.
2(a). Determine what ISPs the mail went through.

3. Check the transit SMTP servers for an open relay. If it's an open relay mail the ISP and tell them.

4. If the mail wasn't sent through an open relay you know their ISP. Contact their ISP and tell them that a person on thir net is a spammer and be sure to include ALL information you used in the process.

If you REALLY want to BILL them, you'll have to ask the ISP for their mailing address or contact info. Worse comes to worse you could always bill the ISP, but frankly this 'billing' thing is VERY harsh and I feel that just contacting them and the ISPs are sufficient.

What about using copyright law?

[www.sorehands.com]

Many spammers are using bots to grab email addresses off of web pages. Why not use the fact that they are illegally copying the websites to get them?

Of course the SPAM lists that some companies sell is a derivitive product.

Remember Bidder's Edge v. Ebay, they argued using bots to collect information is illegal. Companies selling software to use open relays and collect addresses is as illegal as napster (if not more). Lets use some of these rulings against spammers.

Re:What about using copyright law?

[T-Ranger]

If its online, then its publicly viewable. While some sites have legal statements saying that you cant use any of the herin information for commercial purposes, most dont.

Its not even close to a violation of copyright laws; there not pretending to be you, there not steeling your image or anything.

Re:What about using copyright law?

[www.sorehands.com]

If its online, then its publicly viewable. While some sites have legal statements saying that you cant use any
of the herin information for commercial purposes, most dont.

The point is to place terms of use on a site. Look at the terms of use on my site. This has not been tested in court, yet.

Even without a terms of use or copyright notice, copyright still applies.

Re:What about using copyright law?

[zenyu]

The point is to place terms of use on a site. Look at the terms of use on my site [sorehands.com]. This has not been tested in court, yet.
Well since click-wrap is only valid in a couple backwards states, I can't image non-click through being valid anywhere. I think if you required people to send you a PGP signed copy of the agreement before viewing the site that would be valid in the US. A fax could be upheld just about anywhere.

Even without a terms of use or copyright notice, copyright still applies.
Most contries require the copyright notice, but your e-mail is information anyway (hence not protected by copyright).

Re:What about using copyright law?

[hearingaid]

You're quite correct. They're engaging in unauthorized copying.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to prove. But yeah, email harvester bots are probably illegal, unless the site author (not the owner, the author, the one who owns the copyright) authorizes them.

lets do worse

[JohnG]

If they are spamming an ad for a website, you can look at their registars whois database and find the owners mailing address.
I say we all send a pizza to his house. After a few million pizza delivery guys after every spam sending attempt he'll give up.
Not to mention the double effect that you can invest in Pizza Hut and watch the stock go WAY up!
Disclaimer: The post was intended for entertainment. I will not be held accountable for any spammers who die from pepperoni overdose!

Re:lets do worse

[doorbot.com]

Not to mention the double effect that you can invest in Pizza Hut and watch the stock go WAY up!

If anyone plans to implement JohnG's ingenious plan, please drop me an email. I'll send you a pizza after I make millions selling Pizza Hut stock short.

Who do you think is going to end up paying for those "million" pizzas that are sent to spammers?

Re:lets do worse

[FyreFiend]

The problem with that is a lot of these "people" (I'll be nice) use fake whoisfor their domains

Re:lets do worse

[JohnG]

Nobody is going to pay for the pizzas. It was a joke. I included a disclaimer for the spammers, maybe next I'll include one for the humor impaired.

Re:lets do worse

[cobar]

Or better yet, how about signing them up for magazine subscriptions. That way they'll spend as much time cancelling them as you do dealing with spam.

Re:lets do worse

[autocracy]

I work at Pizza Hut. Don't do that!

Re:lets do worse

[Dark_Cobra87]

Hmmnnn...

Spam-Swap is an excellent idea.

Everyone, collect every email you get from spam and sign them up for as much crap as you can! Muwahhaa! Sign them up for their own spam if you can....

interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

since i seriously doubt that there is _any_ legal president for this, where did this guy's lawyer get off sending him a "threatening note"?

techienews.net

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The word is "precedent", moron.

Taco Snotting really "Donkey Punching"

[Anonymous Coward]

Taco shotting is really donkey punching, a feat I've seen performed upon unsuspecting hose monsters.. . :-)

whore

[seanadams.com]

I didn't have a chance to get to the other link before farces.com went down, but here's the first page (edited to pass junk filter):

A few months ago, I published an article outlining my opinion and experience with spammers in general and one in particular. That article, Fun with spammers, has drawn the attention of the subject spammer?s lawyer, and I am being threatened with legal action.

I am publishing both the demand and my response without comment. Your comments are most welcome.

Today I received the following letter on lawyer letterhead:

Gary K. Kahn
-address-
November 12, 2001

Michael Fraase
-address-

RE: Dispute Involving E-Core Technologies, Inc.

Dear Mr. Fraase:

This office represents Jim Hobuss of Portland, Oregon. Mr. Hobuss has called my attention to information you have placed on the internet regarding Mr. Hobuss. Specifically, you have defamed Mr. Hobuss in your posting and it is clear you are attempting to interfere with his business.

On behalf of Mr. Hobuss, demand is hereby made upon you to remove any reference to Mr. Hobuss from your posting. If you fail to do so within ten (10) days, my client will consider all appropriate legal recourse against you.

Sincerely, REEVES, KAHN & HENNESSY (signed)
Gary K. Kahn

To which I responded on my business letterhead:

ARTS & FARCES LLC
-address-
16 November 2001

Gary K. Kahn
--address-

Dear Mr. Kahn,
I received your letter concerning Mr. Hobuss? claims of defamation in information posted on the ARTS & FARCES internet website. I believe the article in question can be found at:
http://www.farces.com/farces/999462920/

under the title ?Fun with spammers.?

The piece accurately reflects my email experience with Mr. Hobuss and my opinion of that experience. I stand by the article and have no intention of removing it from publication. Nor do I intend to remove any reference to Mr. Hobuss in the piece.

In fact, I expect to publish a follow-up piece including the text of your letter and this response.

Your client?s account with this firm is now seriously past due, and I?d like to know what his intention is with regard to my unpaid invoice(s).

Regards,

(signed)

Michael Fraase

I've had things like this happen to me.

[Yottabyte84]

A while ago I got an account at neopets.com (using a disposable email address) making sure to select the "don't send me any email" box, and after I was disgusted at thier birbery for clicking ads forgot about it. Then they spamed me. I sent them an email telling them they'd be billed for any further spam. Here's what they sent me (personal details deleted):

To Mr. [censored]:

The Legal Department is in receipt of your message regarding an
advertisement you allegedly received from NeoPets. We take all user
concerns-especially those in connection with member privacy and safety-very
seriously, and in this regard monitor the website around the clock for
inappropriate content.

To begin with, NeoPets unequivocally rejects your "purported" contract and
refuses to enter into any agreement with you. Your demands are neither
reasonable nor are they acceptable under any circumstance. As such, this
message should not be construed as an admission of liability or acquiescence
to your demands, but asv a complete rejection of your offer. Likewise, any
transmission you may receive from NeoPets is not an acceptance of your
agreement and may not be construed as an acceptance under any condition.

Moreover, by registering on the NeoPets.com website, you expressly agreed to
NeoPets' Terms and Conditions, which states that NeoPets may send
notifications and announcements to its users' e-mail addresses. Neither
NeoPets nor its sponsors send unsolicited e-mails and will only send e-mails
to users who have expressly requested, or consented to receive, such
correspondence and have provided an e-mail address destination. As such,
immediately upon the Legal Department's receipt of your message, we had
0rnrsegu001@sneakemail.com blocked from our system to ensure that you do not
receive any more unwanted e-mails. Additionally, we researched your e-mail
address in the NeoPets database and located the account "yottabyte," which
we immediately froze to prevent you from receiving any further unwanted
e-mail communications.

Unfortunately, we have no control over the sponsors our users register with,
and this is a matter that must be taken up with each sponsor that sends you
e-mails. As a practical matter, our sponsors are very responsive to
"unsubscribing" users who wish to be removed from e-mail databases. As a
courtesy, we will try to help remove your e-mail address from our sponsors'
systems, although we can make no guarantees as to the effectiveness of
preventing future unwanted e-mails. To do this, however, I will need you to
send a list of the sponsors from whom you are receiving unwanted e-mails.
Because NeoPets.com does not pass along user information to anyone, we do
not know where your e-mail address was registered and thus have no way to
automatically unsubscribe it.

Please contact us directly at legalDepartment@NeoPets.com if you have any
further questions or if this problem persists. We hope the foregoing has
addressed your concerns.

Sincerely,

The NeoPets Legal Team

Now for some commentary.

Moreover, by registering on the NeoPets.com website, you expressly agreed to
NeoPets' Terms and Conditions, which states that NeoPets may send
notifications and announcements to its users' e-mail addresses. Neither
NeoPets nor its sponsors send unsolicited e-mails and will only send e-mails
to users who have expressly requested, or consented to receive, such
correspondence and have provided an e-mail address destination.

And yet they tried to get me to buy tickets to some event (I seem to recall it being some radio station held event of some sort)

Unfortunately, we have no control over the sponsors our users register with,
and this is a matter that must be taken up with each sponsor that sends you
e-mails.

I definatly did not register for any annoying ads.

I responded to this by telling them "whatever.... all further email to this address will bounce" then going to sneakemail.com and deactivating the address.

I'm sort of amused by this, I bet it cost them at least $100 to have thier lawyers tell me off.

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Malcontent]

"I'm sort of amused by this, I bet it cost them at least $100 to have thier lawyers tell me off."

If everybody did what you did it might cost them some real money. Especially if you replied and argued your case. You could have argued that the spam you got was not covered by your agreement and that they indeed owed you money. Imagine if a thousand people did this?

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Em Ellel]

If everybody did what you did it might cost them some real money. Especially if you replied and argued your case. You could have argued that the spam you got was not covered by your agreement and that they indeed owed you money. Imagine if a thousand people did this?

Yeah ....or they can figure out the concepts of form letter and auto-reply. Personally I see no good way to deal with these people but to ignore them and guard your email address like a hawk.I use a different address for every thing I sign up for on-line and have them all go to same mailbox. If any given address gets too much spam I know WHO sold my address and I can easily redirect that address to /dev/null without loosing personal mail. (The + alias in qmail does wonders.)

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen other people mention this, and I have to wonder: what's to keep the spammers from learning that the LHS of the + is a perfectly valid account?

me+foo@foo.bar --> me@foo.bar ... easy!

Personally, I'm at the "create new entries in /etc/mail/aliases" stage of address tracking. So far the only real bastards are Ticketmaster, who don't acknowledge bounces and keep spamming the damn thing.

The next step is to use subdomains, and revoke the DNS when they get spammed. One subdomain per e-mail address is silly, but it's about the only way to keep them from filling my maillogs with bounces.

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure showed them. And just think, now that you spent 10 minutes writing a reply, sending it to the spammers, and bragging about it on slashdot, you have a lot more in damages to sue them over then the 1 second of your time to hit the delete key.

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[erroneus]

You sure showed them. And just think, now that you spent 10 minutes writing a reply, sending it to the spammers, and bragging about it on slashdot, you have a lot more in damages to sue them over then the 1 second of your time to hit the delete key.


You have no idea what damage "spam" does do you? You think the "Slashdot effect" is profound? How about the effect that spam has on ISPs but to mention people who have their email boxes needlessly filled with crap. Furthermore, thanks to vulnerabilities ala Microsoft, users are exposed to even more of such annoyances through pop-ups and pop-unders.

The annoyance at users', ISPs' and mail adminstrators' expenses should be halted. The argument "just delete it" doesn't hold water since in most cases the email must be opened and downloaded in order to delete it.

Furthermore, I will add that porn spam, which exists in many forms has a special place in my angry heart. I'm a father of two sons. They don't need this crap in their boxes. Additionally, they don't need to read anything about penis enlargement, breast enhancements, herbal viagra or any other such related information.

"Delete" yes -- Delete the spammer at the source, not the destination.

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Archanagor]

Hm.

Sounds to me like they've agreed to not send anymore junkmail. (Provided you give them the information on which sponsors were sending the junkmail, since, as stated in the letter they personally don't send junk.)

You should have traced the mail back to the sponsor, not neopets, or at least deal with NeoPets' sponsors by way of neopets, as they were offering.

They were fairly condencending in their reply, however.

I'd call it a partial success. But, it looks almost like you jumped to conclusions, and assumed they personally sent you the spam, and that obviously wasn't the case.

Meh. What do I know, anyway?

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Yottabyte84]

I personaly use a program called ricochet which traces the headers of my spam and sends off complaint letters auomaticly. I set up my mail program to invoke it upon the current message when I hit ctrl-j. This foes only take one second. I only bother threatening spamers that particulary annoy me. Damages for my time would be the time it takes me to donload the messages at 2400bps over my cellphone (well, it's plausable.....). It also causes me emotinal distress to have people telling me my penis is too small every other day.

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Yottabyte84]

The from address on the spam was (IIRC) kraft@neopets.com and they were the only ones with my email address.

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[Mr. White]

$100? Yeah, right. They probably:
-used a form letter,
-some pimply faced "user support" high schooler penned your reply,
-or, at best case scenario, they retain a lawer to take care of this stuff. The laywer gets paid regardless of the amount of work he does each month.

Witold
www.witold.org

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[zentigger]

You sure showed them. And just think, now that you spent 10 minutes writing a reply, sending it to the spammers, and bragging about it on slashdot, you have a lot more in damages to sue them over then the 1 second of your time to hit the delete key.

let's see that's 1 second to hit the delete key...2 minutes to download the HTML formatted email messages with 500K of inline images. At least a few more seconds to actually read the header and make sure it's not something important (yes, some of us actually have jobs that rely heavily on email!) now times that by 50 becuase that's about the number of spam mails that I receive everyday (an my server does use MAPS and I do have many procmail filters) so we're already at about 1 hour of my time. Now for the other hour of my time spent sorting out the big mess made by accidentally deleting something that wasn't spam. There goes 1/4 of my working day!

Now what was you point again?

Re:I've had things like this happen to me.

[RFC959]

What's to stop them? Nothing, really, aside from their own lack of brains and/or energy. Look at it this way: given the choice between writing a really simple address-skimming program and writing a smart, address-fixing address-skimming program, most people are going to choose to do the first - especially as most spammers are probably not going to pay any extra for the extra "feature", considering that their response rate is infinitesimally small anyway.

I just discovered that my ISP permits a double plus hack (me+foo+bar@privacy.org), which might be handy...

About spammers and telemarketers

[dvNull]

I really get annoyed when long distance companies spam or call me up to sell services to me when I already have it. For example, MCI called me not once, twice or three times but a total of 5 times trying to sell me long distance service. At that time I already had long distance service with them. Now of course I do not :)

dvNull

Re:About spammers and telemarketers

[flewp]

I once got a call from a home security system agency that said they had a special on home protection systems. I asked them if it protected me from unsolicited sales calls. Confused, the person on the other line said "Uhm, no sir, we don't offer that kind of protection." I told them I wasn't interested, and that they should remove me from their list.
I was also contacted by someone offering free estimates on aluminum siding for my home. I told them that plastics were the future and they got really irritated at this.
Basically, I like to have a little fun with telemarketers, it's great listening to them when they're caught off-guard by your questions/responses.

google cache

[Anonymous Coward]

here is google's cache
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:R7VWyB6BrGM :w ww.farces.com/farces/1005968309/index_html

My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[KnightElite]

A few times, when telephone salespeople called, my dad said he would do the same thing. Most people would just say, okay, sorry to bother you, and hang up. But a guy from MBNA said he agreed to pay my dad for his time, and my dad wound up getting a credit card from it :)

Re:My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty stupid doing it to telephone saleman because they're just hourly employees trying to put food on the table. The spammers however have no defense and it is 100% their actions to choose to send out the spam and it is 100% their benefit if the spam produces business for them. Therefore the spammer is the most directly involved in the solicitation and is the one that you can most directly affect.

Re:My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[Anonymous Coward]

...and my dad wound up getting a credit card from it :)

yea, i bet your dad really 'scored' big time. what's his interest rate on that card? 42%?

Re:My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you know how HARD it is to get a credit card from those guys! I myself have only had about 6000 offers from them in the last year.

Re:My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[Anonymous Coward]

He means his dad got the telemarketers credit card number, to bill them.

Re:My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Muggers are poor hard-working thugs too, feel sorry for them. Telephone salesmen chose their pitiful spam-like profession too; and I certainly didn't ask them to call me. There's little difference between phone salespeople and spammers; and those minor details concern the scale and scope of product/service pushing.

I think of spammers as large-scale phone salespeople, with more automated (and thus more irritating) and higher-capacity shit machine.

Re:My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly you miss the point. Telephone salemen are virtually anonymous and replaceable. Treat one like an asshole and there are thousands that will fill his place. As long as telephone solicitation is allowed, don't think by treating the salesmen poorly that you are going to make an ounce of difference.

The companies sending out spam however are different. The spammers are usually single individuals which you have the ability to find their contact info, their ISP (usually a web store front), their ISP's ISP, every administrator listed in the whois databases, all the abuse@ address, postmaster@ addresses and so on. It is far more effective to combat solicitation from spam than it is to ruin the day of a perfectly replaceable telephone salesman.

Again I should just point out from your last statement that you think spammers are large-scale phone salespeople. Just the opposite is true. They are small-scale salespeople with higher-capacity shit machine.

Re:My dad has done the same thing a couple times

[DavidTC]

Sure you will make a difference. The worse you make the job, the kigher paid they will have to be. The higher paid they are, the less companies can afford of them.

It's simple supply and demand. Make the job really unwanted, and there will be less people doing it for more money.

Logically, the best thing to do is to lead them on, then after they catch on tell them you were, in fact, wasting their time and they're horrible people and you hope they die.

Making the company pay them for wasting time is a the best thing you can do, annoying them is of secondary importance.

This costs the company a lot of money, and makes someone who's doing a job that results in bothering hundreds of people slightly less happy about it.

Warning: Really evil plan

If you're really evil, you can delibrately make them upset with you, then complain to their supervisor and try to get them fired. If you got them to swear, you've got them fired. ;)

Spam and Hotmail

[mgv]

Just a question (slightly but not badly offtopic).

Has microsoft actually improved their spam filters lately for hotmail? I seem to be getting alot less spam through them.

Michael

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[alyandon]

Several months ago Hotmail upgraded their spam filters. If you log into the hotmail website and crank the spam filter to its second highest filter level (the highest flags mail from anyone that isn't in your address book as spam) you will find that 90% or more of spam is correctly routed to your bulk mail folder. There is even an option to automatically delete messages that are routed to the bulk mail folder but I don't do that as some of the mailing/announcement lists I subscribe to will get flagged as spam and manually require me to add the email address they are sent from to the "not bulk mail" list.

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[mgv]

I used to get alot of mail addressed directly to my hotmail account - which I don't give out (its a redirect from a pop3 account).

Someone obviously got a subscriber list from the hotmail site, as you would see 20 or so names alphabetically sorted near your own name in the To or CC list.

These just stopped happening (Maybe the spammers were overwhelmed with a sense of remorse, but I doubt it). I never changed anything in my settings. They aren't in my bulk mail. I think microsoft is filtering them out. Anyone else seen this?

If it is happening, its the most effective thing I've seen so far as a spam filter.

Michael

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[AntiNorm]

Has microsoft actually improved their spam filters lately for hotmail? I seem to be getting alot less spam through them.

I've had a Hotmail address as my primary address (don't laugh, please) since before M$ bought them out. Somewhere around five years now. So it follows that I get so much spam it isn't even remotely funny.

Anyway, in response to your comment, my inbox spam seems to have been narrowing itself down into a few specific categories/spammers lately, including:
* Some company repeatedly trying to sell me pharmaceuticals
* University Diplomas
* A few others

I would get a kick out of sending some legit cease-and-desist letters to these people, but I don't really have the time or money to get the necessary legal counsel. Yes, I have looked into changing my email provider, but I don't want to pick a company only to have it become the next dotcom of doom. So I guess I'm screwed :[

Re: Spam and Hotmail

[Inthewire]

Shoot...I still check the Hotmail account I picked up in 1996...haven't used it as anything but a personal research project since 'bout 1997...with filtering and autodelete I still get 10 or so spams per day.

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[dda]

Effectively, my girlfriend has also a hotmail address, and receives everyday a few University diplomas offers, which is a shame !.
It's even worse that the only filter rule that could work is to reject some sender adresses, but these great university diplomas are always sent using a different "from" address.

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[biohazard99]

that is kind of like a telephone autodialer, like spam that hits my hotmail ususally goew jdholl, jdholl0, jdholl1, jdholl2. Its a shotgun effect

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[Reziac]

I have a hotmail account I use mostly as a junkcatcher, and it used to get spam by the metric ton. Over the past month or so it has suddenly stopped getting any spam at all. Not that I'm complaining. :)

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[d-e-w]

I've had three hotmail addresses for several years. They're all odd--longer phrases instead of words or names--and I used to rarely get spam at any of them. But I've strictly controlled my use of them.

A couple of months back, I needed to investigate the use of topica for something. I used one of those hotmail accounts to create an account, created and played with a list, then deleted the list and left. Two days later, I started receiving anywhere from 30-50 spam messages a day at that account. (Up to that point, that was my cleanest account--outside of MS 'news' junk, I had never received a spam message.)

Lesson learned--don't use topica!

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[EllisDees]

It did seem to go down there for a little while. However, I have noticed quite a bit more sneaking through lately. Could they be selling the ability to bypass the filters? Nah Microsoft would never do something like that.

Re:Spam and Hotmail

[Anonymous Coward]

Any of you guys getting that DVD copying to CDR spam.. man this annoying the hell out of me.

SpamCop, and Nagging Admins with complaint Email

[RageMachine]

I would have to say the best thing to do is to use spamcop for the 1st or 2nd time, and then after that if the ISP still does nothing about the spammer, then find every address listed on the site, and forward the spam to it. That will make the admins listen.

I repeatedly recieved spam from a site called popsite.net, run by megapop.net, and repeadidly asked them to stop sending spam, or to stop providing free dialups to spammers, and they still din't listen. I got tired of it and called them. They still did nothing. I recieved another one, and decided to just annoy the hell out of them untill they did somthing about it. I forwarded the spam to EVERY email address listed on megapop.net: abuse@ support@ noc@ billing@ etc... every one. Then I forwared the auto-replys back to them. And finally a REAL person emailed me and said they had found the spammer, and mentioned that several people were pressing charges against him, and asked If I wanted to, and gave me his email address, AND his home phone number.

Now every now and then when im near a phone and bored, ill call the spammer and hangup, or play a recording of a Telemarketer; somthing along the lines of "Congratulations! You've qualified for the platinum card!". Every site that asks for an email address to download somthing, I just put his email address in it.

I have over 1,200 lines in access file for sendmail, and STILL I get spam from overseas servers. Mostly I will just block all of .co.uk, or .com.pt, or somthing to that nature, to prevent 9/10ths of the spam that comes in.

The best way to fight spammers/advertisers/telemarketers is to fight fire with fire.

Getting back

[wormyguy1]

Spammers really go to all ends to get you to open their email. I got an email the other day that said, in all caps, "BIN LADEN HAS BEEN CAPTURED", and it came from a coherent-looking MSN email address. Realizing that I didn't know anybody lame enough to send me anything in all caps, I opened it anyway. Well, to no surprise, it was porn, in HTML format, with some 300k of blinky, flashy, seizure-inducing images.

If it's one thing I don't understand about spam (and this coming from the fact that my mother is in the advertising/graphic design business and I help them with tech support issues, I know how the corporate marketing machines work) is that you want to target a key demographic who is going to be interested in your product (in this case porn), you want to send it to the people who will be most likely to give you their money. Marketers spend millions of dollars on demographic databases to make sure that they aren't wasting money marketing to people who aren't interested. Now imagine how much it costs them to send 300k of images to the email boxes of, I'll be conservative here, a million email addresses. Imagine how much it costs when said email bounces. Witnessing the slashdot effect (especially right now, I haven't even been able to resolve the domain of the site linked above), I can't even imagine what must be going through spammers minds when they send an email with "BIN LADEN CAPTURED!" as the subject. After reading that subject, I imagine that most people would open the email, download all that porn, cost the spammers money, and then not even be interested as they weren't looking for porn to begin with. Same thing with them registering domain names... if you are looking for information on the White House (IE: whitehouse.com) and you come across porn, how interested are you going to be?

The other thing that surprises me: if it wasn't successful, they wouldn't bother.

Re:Getting back

[Anonymous Coward]

hi,
can you please forward that message to me?

email addy is: jimhobuss@home.com

Re:Getting back

[sg_oneill]

Actually I suspect the decision to title it "Bin Laden Captured" worked quite well. You opened it didn't you?

Not that makes it ethical. (Now that said, wouldn't it be great to be able to tell Mr Bin that there is *PORN* with , like , chicks with no veils on *AND MORE!* being marketed under his name. *And yet the west STILL doesn't apreciate him!* The look on the guys face would be priceless. (grr infidels! etc)

Ahem.

Re:Getting back

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, Al Queda operatives are quite keen on pr0n. (And strippers, but everyone knows that.) They apparently hid secret messages in pr0n images. So...serve your country, download pr0n (and go over it with a hex editor if you get around to it).

Re:Getting back

[dorward]

Realizing that I didn't know anybody lame enough to send me anything in all caps, I opened it anyway. Well, to no surprise, it was porn, in HTML format, with some 300k of blinky, flashy, seizure-inducing images.

I never recieve ANY useful email in HTML format. I don't get much of it, so I just use a text only email client and delete HTML formatted mail, but if it became a problem I would set up a procmail filter to elimate it.

Re:Getting back

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't open any email unless it has the words "Kournikova" and "nude" in the subject line.

Re:Getting back

[smackmonkey]

Looking for a few good crusaders to join the War Against Islam. Strike down the new Satan with your righteousness: outguess.org - purveyors of fine image-based steganography (and steganography detection) tools.

It begins

[s0crates]

We have one guy making spamming more trouble than it's worth. If we could get a significant number of people to begin counter-harrasment tactics and filing suit it could be the death of spam. Same with telemarketing. First never buy from ppl who call you at dinner time and explain to them why you refuse to do so, second tell them to put you on their do not call list (you have the legal right to under FCC regs). Lastly take up as much time of any marketer as you can and then do not buy. The only way to end an annoying marketing tactic is to make it unprofitable.

Stupid Spam Terrorists

[orgnine]

Spam is such a law-bending crock.

Spammers remind me of terrorists.

Examples:
I just formed a website design firm and even if I want to post an e-mail address on my website or any other website I design I find I can still get spam. Within three weeks of my first posted e-mail address I began receiving spam TODAY due to stupid bots. It seems like the bots can even get through the cgi-scripts. How fun!

Here in Canada I go to Radio Shack to get some batteries and they want my mailing address to send me their retarded flyers. I'm like, no. (Unless I'm desparate for some fire-starting paper!).

IMHO Spam must be obliterated not only through the Internet but also through mail... I still receive tons of junk mail through e-mail and my mailbox.

We must collaborate and form an allegiance against the terrorists.. er... spammers. You know what I mean.

orgnine

Re:Stupid Spam Terrorists

[AntiNorm]

Here in Canada I go to Radio Shack to get some batteries and they want my mailing address to send me their retarded flyers

Tell them "I choose not to reveal that." That's what I always do.

Re:Stupid Spam Terrorists

[Lunastorm]

Tell them "I choose not to reveal that." That's what I always do.

I prefer to say "I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Re:Stupid Spam Terrorists

[Darth RadaR]

Here in Canada I go to Radio Shack to get some batteries and they want my mailing address to send me their retarded flyers. I'm like, no. (Unless I'm desparate for some fire-starting paper!).

You're missing out. Just give them a fake address. For example...

Gonzo MacGuilicutty
1313 Mockingbird Lane
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

If enough people do this, then Radio Shack (You've got questions? We've got blank stares.) will discover that they're blowing a lot of money on sending out brocures to fake addressen. The people that Radio Shack sells their address lists to will be kinda pissed off when they discover that so many of the addressen are pooched. Eventually a clue might be imparted to them when it hits them harder in the pocket book. So, c'mon everybody, give Radio Shack those fake addressen.

Re:Stupid Spam Terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet. Give them the address of a different Radio Shack store.

Me? I just say "You don't need that."

Re:Stupid Spam Terrorists

[pixel_bc]

Just give them a fake address.

Indeed. I always give them Radio Shack Headquarters' mailing address. Got the idea from a 2600hz article...

Best idea they had in years. ;)

cached copy and weird coincidence

[2id]

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:R7VWyB6BrGM:w ww.farces.com/farces/999462920/index_html+farces+f un+with+spammers&hl=en

Very odd. I was reading this exact page ~2 hours ago(from nanae I think). Synchronicity?

Re:cached copy and weird coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, indeed it was synchronicity. Some might say that it was just two arbitrary events that, because of their similarity, happened to register in your mind; but I say no, it happened to you because you are special, and someone or something is trying to tell you something -- perhaps to become an anti-spam crusader.

Almost as remarkable is that not fifteen minutes ago I was taking a dump.

Re:cached copy and weird coincidence

[KjetilK]

No. You're not the only one reading nanae... :-)

Re:cached copy and weird coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost as remarkable is that not fifteen minutes ago I was taking a dump.

You too??!!! Synchronicity indeed.

which isn't much

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the 'special taco'...it's the big burrito you want to watch out for.

the .99 cent special is no bargain

Leave the spammers alone

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had it with you people complaining about the services that bulk emailers provide to us. I for one appreciate the exposure to new goods and services that I otherwise probably wouldn't realize existed.

Re:Leave the spammers alone

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this anonymous poster's assessment. I just wish that some of you cowards would get some guts and stop your slavish devotion to the anti-spam party-line.

Re:Leave the spammers alone

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, as a matter of fact I happen to know that you were really interested in those penis enlargement pills, the rest of us aren't.

The other page

[Forager]

/.'s stupid "lameness filter" won't let me post the other page. Here's google's cache:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:R7VWyB6BrGM:w ww.farces.com/farces/999462920/index.html

~Aaron.

Re:The other page

[sllort]

/.'s stupid "lameness filter" won't let me post the other page.

Slashdot's lameness filter isn't "stupid". Jamie has repeatedly rebutted this opinion, you can read his rebuttal here:

Actually the gzip filter is a really clever way to determine whether you're posting ascii art or repetition.

That pretty much says it all. It's actually a really clever way to detect lameness, so I can only assume that you were actually trying to post something lame. Anyway, read Jamie's comment; if there really is some way to improve the lameness filter he welcomes comments via email.

Whining about the safeguards that Slashdot uses to protect us in the main story threads isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

Re:The other page

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be clever, but it's not all that effective. ASCII art and spam can and does get past, and legitimate comments frequently get blocked by it.

I could write a filter that translated the comment through babelfish 3 times and then compared it with the original and discarded it if over 60% of the words were identical or very similar. It would be incredibly clever, but ineffective as hell.

I would much rather Slashdot use effective code than clever hacks that don't work very well.

dead link

[Anonymous Coward]

is it just me, or is the referred website dead already?

Google Cache

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:R7VWyB6BrGM:w ww.farces.com/farces/999462920/index_html

Going after TrafficMagnet

[greysoul]

Recently I got Spam from a company called Traffic Magnet, they provided me with a screensho of my webpage, and I sent them the following, feel free to copy, or comment on the points of my letter. thanks

Christine,

One thing I notice is that you are using my copyright images to sell a product and/or service.

Please email the physical address of your legal department, or the location to which I should have an attorney contact you about this issue.

If you prefer to contact me via mail please use my business address:

--Address--

As an artist I take my copyright, and privacy very seriously. While no laws yet exist in New Mexico regarding Unsolicited Commercial Email (SPAM) There are laws that protect Copyright holders. As a copyright holder it is my responsibility to protect my property. I do hope that you take this matter seriously and we can resolve this quickly. The normal process is I would have my attorney send a cease and desist letter, to which you would have a lawyer reply that the actions demanded (by me or my agent) have been followed out in accordance with applicable laws.

Thank you for your time

Signed.

Re:Going after TrafficMagnet

[shakah]

Assuming their practice is to include a screenshot of each owner's website in an e-mail to that particular website owner (e.g. they'd grab a screenshot of yahoo.com when sending their spam to Jerry Wang, a screenshot of dell.com when spamming Michael Dell, etc.), wouldn't that be fair use? Copyright (at least pre-DMCA) doesn't give the content creator absolute power to dictate use of that content.

Re:Going after TrafficMagnet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.. you replied with that and it:

a) came back as undeliverable

b) never got a response.

either way, not only did the spammer spam you but he also got you to waste your time responding! Hahah. Sucker.

Re:Going after TrafficMagnet

[ebonkyre]

I was particularly amused when I got one of these ads trying to sell me their "increase your traffic" service... for a disused domain name, complete with a screen shot of my "this domain is no longer in use" message in red bold print.

I didn't even bother to complain that time, since the entertainment value outweighed the annoyance.

As far as the copyright issue goes, since they only sent it to (perceived) copyright holder, I doubt any complaint along those lines would stand up in court.

Re:Going after TrafficMagnet

[hearingaid]

Probably, in the United States.

Next time, pretend to be French or Canadian and threaten to sue for violation of your moral rights. Heh.

"Asshole fee"

[innocent_white_lamb]

Two years ago, I walked out the door of my business one day at noon and discovered that a roofing contractor had strung a cord across the vacant lot beside my building and had plugged into an outside electrical outlet on the rear of my building. He was using my power to run his roof-tar machine.

I immediately turned around and went back inside and turned off the circuit breaker for that outlet. After a while, though, I thought, "Hey, where does he get off plugging in without permission!" As the fax number for his company was printed on the door of his truck, I wrote up an invoice for one "asshole fee" at $50 plus $3.50 sales tax, and faxed it to his company.

To my surprise, the following week I had a cheque in the mail from them, for $53.50. The payment stub that came with it said, payment enclosed for asshole fee, $50 plus sales tax.

I was amazed. On the other hand, I hotfooted it right to the bank and deposited the cheque, too!

Re:"Asshole fee"

[cburley]

I wrote up an invoice for one "asshole fee" at $50 plus $3.50 sales tax

That's all it costs??

Man, I've been paying way too much for that privilege!

Re:"Asshole fee"

[aozilla]

To my surprise, the following week I had a cheque in the mail from them, for $53.50. The payment stub that came with it said, payment enclosed for asshole fee, $50 plus sales tax.

I was amazed. On the other hand, I hotfooted it right to the bank and deposited the cheque, too!

Did you send the sales tax to your state government?

But seriously, the civil charges alone for such theft would run much higher than $50, not to mention the lawyer fees for the criminal case (and the possible jail time). Considering that you had their fax number and were potentially interested in persuing it, getting away with $53.50 was a pretty good deal.

Spammers, on the other hand, aren't doing anything illegal.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[Nickoty]

haha! Couldn't you please scan that stub and put it on the net, along with the story?

Re:"Asshole fee"

[pete-classic]

He probably doesn't have a "state government" since he spells it "cheque."

But he used "$" so safe money says he's Australian.

Anyway, if he bothered to collect it he probably paid it.

-Peter

Re:"Asshole fee"

[sqlrob]

Spammers, on the other hand, aren't doing anything illegal.

Actually yes, they usually are.

• In some states, the spam itself is illegal
• Fraudulent contact information in WHOIS
• Use of open relays
• Use of dial-ups as mail servers and web servers, usually against ISP TOS

Re:"Asshole fee"

[aozilla]

In some states, the spam itself is illegal.

Name one. I'll give you a hint, not Washington.

Fraudulent contact information in WHOIS

What law is there against that?

Use of open relays

Most spam does not use open relays.

Use of dial-ups as mail servers and web servers, usually against ISP TOS

Breaking an ISP TOS is not at all illegal. It may be a breach of contract, but in most cases the spammer is not going to get in any more trouble than having his/her account deleted. Besides, if the spammer is breaking the ISP TOS, it makes little sense to make legal threats when you can just contact the ISP.

If you want to charge for spam, force people to agree to pay before you let them email you. It isn't that difficult to send an autoreply with a simple contract and a one time reply address for them to reply if they agree. That'll eliminate 99.9999999% of your spam, still allow people to contact you, and give you a shot in court of actually collecting money on the spam you do receive, especially if you ban IP addresses outside your own country.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[sqlrob]

Name one. I'll give you a hint, not Washington
California
Illinois
There's several others as well. spamlaws seems to be slashdotted at the moment, so I can't get the complete list

Most spam does not use open relays
About half of what I get does

The fraudulent contact info / violation of AUP are both violations of contract law. You break a contract, you're breaking law, unless the term itself is breaking the law.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[hearingaid]

Breaking an ISP TOS is not at all illegal. It may be a breach of contract, but in most cases the spammer is not going to get in any more trouble than having his/her account deleted. Besides, if the spammer is breaking the ISP TOS, it makes little sense to make legal threats when you can just contact the ISP.

Nice logic, buddy.

Contracts. Breach of contract.

Contract law.

Breaching a contract is illegal. It's not criminal behaviour in most cases, but you know, contracts are legal documents and have the force of law.

BTW, entering into a contract with the intent to violate it is usually considered fraud, which is a criminal offense.

I'm beginning to seriously thinking about going to RBL. I'm averaging about 10 spams an hour now, with peak times sometimes giving me about 5-10 a minute. This is too much to deal with reasonably.

Luckily, I have my own mailserver. :)

Re:"Asshole fee"

[Legion303]

Fraudulent contact information in WHOIS

That's not illegal in the US. Unethical, maybe, and definitely sleazy in the case of spammers, but not illegal.

-Legion

Re:"Asshole fee"

[aozilla]

Breaching a contract is illegal. It's not criminal behaviour in most cases, but you know, contracts are legal documents and have the force of law.

Fine. But by that rationale, it's also illegal to threaten to sue someone, at least under Erols AUP (part 1i, banning threats and intimidation). It seems clear to me that there's a huge distinction between criminal law and contract law.

BTW, entering into a contract with the intent to violate it is usually considered fraud, which is a criminal offense.

Seems like something extremely hard to prosecute, and besides it still requires the help of the ISP. I just don't see how making threats to the spammer which you can't follow through on can possibly help. If you really care that much, contact the ISP. In 99% of the cases someone else has already done this anyway, though.

In any case, fine, maybe 50% of spam is illegal. I still think it's stupid to compare spamming to trespassing and theft. But hey, the anti-spam freaks are going to try to convince people that spamming is trespassing and theft, anyway.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[sqlrob]

Most TOS of the Registrars include "Maintaining up to date contact information". Violating this term of the contract is a violation of contract law, and as mentioned in other posts, if done ahead of time with foreknowledge, could be a criminal offense.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[aozilla]

California

Ruled unconstitutional. See Ferguson vs. Friendfinder.

Illinois

Only covers spam with false headers.

You break a contract, you're breaking law, unless the term itself is breaking the law.

Fine.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[sqlrob]

Illinois

Only covers spam with false headers.
Umm, so does the Washington law. That's why it has been considered Constitutional

Everything that I get that from a dialup has forged headers.

I have gotten maybe one spam that meets all of the following requirements (breaking these means breaking the law in at least one state, probably more, and possibly Federal laws as welll):

• Not from an open relay
• From an ISP whose TOS permits it
• Completely valid headers (including From: , Reply-To:, Received:, non-misleading subject line )
• Offering something that is legal
• Domains in the message and headers have complete and valid registration information
• Domains/URLs in the message are hosted by providers whose TOS allows advertising by spamming
• All mail addresses in headers/message are valid

What's so hard about following those rules? That's something any legitimate business should be able to do just as SOP.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[Merk]

Or Canadian? Remember us? The big country to the north of you? The really big one? We use the dollar sign too, and we have provinces, not states. Sure, we spell things strangely but we're not that bad...

Re:"Asshole fee"

[Dimensio]

Uh, spam is theft by conversion. The spammers force third party ISPs to host their advertising by means of disk storage. Often spammers hijack third party mailservers to send their spew -- theft of service. Sending junk e-mail to a domain that has specifically stated that it is not desired is trespass to chattel.

Spam is illegal. Spammers should be tortured and killed, their heads should be placed on pikes that should line Silicon Valley.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[hearingaid]

Breaching a contract is illegal. It's not criminal behaviour in most cases, but you know, contracts are legal documents and have the force of law.

Fine. But by that rationale, it's also illegal to threaten to sue someone, at least under Erols AUP (part 1i, banning threats and intimidation). It seems clear to me that there's a huge distinction between criminal law and contract law.

I should rephrase. Valid contracts are legally binding documents; to the extent of their invalidity, they're not binding.

You can't contract out your right to sue. (You can contract out your right to sue in the jurisdiction of your choice, though.) There are things that contracts cannot force you to do: for example, a contract to commit murder is not legally binding, on either party.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[aozilla]

The spammers force third party ISPs to host their advertising by means of disk storage.

And you're forcing slashdot to host your nonsense by means of disk storage, but I'm not accusing you of theft.

Often spammers hijack third party mailservers to send their spew -- theft of service.

You have no argument from me on that one.

Sending junk e-mail to a domain that has specifically stated that it is not desired is trespass to chattel.

If the sender knows of your request. That is not the case most of the time.

By setting up a mail server and allowing random email addresses the ability to send to it, you are implicitly granting anyone the right to send you a limited amount of email. It's as though you have an open house and then try to sue certain people who arrive for trespassing.

Spam is illegal. Spammers should be tortured and killed, their heads should be placed on pikes that should line Silicon Valley.

IHBT. IHL. HAND?

Re:"Asshole fee"

[aozilla]

Only covers spam with false headers.

Umm, so does the Washington law. That's why it has been considered Constitutional

I guess we are arguing two different points. You seem to be saying that spam is sometimes illegal, I am saying spam is not always illegal. My initial comment, for instance was essentially "Spam is not illegal". I meant that in the same way as the true statement "Email is not illegal." Sending people unsolicited commercial email is not in and of itself illegal in any state of the US, as far as I know.

As for the fact that you say almost all of the spam that you're being sent is illegal, I guess that alone says that we don't need any more laws or regulations regarding spam, just enforcement of the current laws.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[TekPolitik]

Uh, spam is theft by conversion.

Firstly, conversion is not necessarily theft. Secondly, spam is not conversion (IIRC this was decided in CompuServe Inv v. Cyber Promotions. Spam is, however, a trespass to chattels (from the same case.

And yes, it does look like all spam is in fact illegal.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[sqlrob]

That would explain the disconnect.

However, some additional laws are needed. If an ISP TOS says "no spamming", someone from that service spams, and the ISP does nothing, there is nothing that the recipients can do, despite the fact the spammer is violating contract law.

I want to see something like the Washington law held to nationally (globally would be better), since AFAIK, it is not illegal everywhere for a commercial entity to send something with forged headers.

Re:"Asshole fee"

[Legion303]

All the registrars I've dealt with also have two types of contact entry: the type they can reach you by and the type that shows up on whois/dig/host searches. My registrar can reach me, but people trying to find out where copkiller.org's owner lives are going to have a harder time.

-Legion

Re:"Asshole fee"

[pete-classic]

Who? The name doesn't ring a bell.

Been in any wars I might of heard of?

Just kidding. East of Alaska, right?

I thought you guys used francs. HA!

Kidding again. Seriously, I like you guys. And I know you were in the French and Indian war ;-)

Keep warm, eh?

-Peter

Re:"Asshole fee"

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely not Australian, otherwise it would
have been an arsehole fee.
An ass is a donkey.
An arse is what you sit upon.
Stay clear of the ass's arse.

Otherwise, state government, cheque and $ could have been Australia.

Art & Farces' didn't do anything ...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

"except one guy who was so incensed at receiving this invoice"

That link is already /.ed to death : how's that for spamming the messenger ?

Google cache comes through again

[steveha]

Go to www.google.com, and type in the keywords "farces fun with spam". The top hit is the page with the details about this. Click on "cached" to see what google.com has in the cache, and you can read the whole thing.

But I pasted a copy of the text in here. Well, most of it; the slashdot lameness filter won't let me paste in the whole thing.

Warning: the spammer likes to use bad words.

BEGIN QUOTED TEXT

Every day I get roughly as much spam, which I define as any unsolicited bulk email, as legitimate email. It's a problem that doesn't have an easy solution. The proposed legislation generally misses the mark of eliminating either the unsolicited bit or the bulk bit. While the first amendment protects your speech, it doesn't include a requirement that I subsidize it--financially or with my attention.

With that in mind, I think I may have hit on a formula that probably won't eliminate spam, but it sure makes the parasites think twice about doing it again. And it always seems to push the indignant outrage button that all of these vermin seem to have in common. So far, the formula has worked like a choreographed dance in each instance. Here's how it goes (please play along at home):

Each day I select 2 or 3 of the more outrageous spam messages that serve no useful purpose whatever. They're almost always some sort of commercial scam. I do a traceroute and a whois with NeoTracePro (it's got neat maps) to determine who they really are, where the message really originated, and who their local and upstream bandwidth providers are. Then I send the following reply to the original message--complete will all header information from the original spam--with copies to the abuse, postmaster, and hostmaster addresses at the bottom-feeder's local and upstream provider:

Remove this and all addresses within the farces.com domain from your distribution lists immediately. We have no existing business relationship, nor do I wish to establish one. I don't do business with spammers. Not now. Not ever. You are using my resources for your gain without my permission or compensation. Any further contact from your domain to any address within this domain will indicate tacit agreement to your use of our resources at our published billing rate of US$125 per hour with a 10 hour minimum.

Clear enough?

Invariably I get a quick response, singularly uninspired in its lack of originality:

From: Jim Hobuss
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001
To: mfraase@farces.com
Subject: RE: Save Money On Your Home Loan Today!

Not really.

Could you explain it again?

Yeah, right!

Except this idiot, dumber than most, actually sent a second retort, this time issuing a challenge:

From: Jim Hobuss
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 7:43 PM
To: mfraase@farces.com
Subject: RE: Save Money On Your Home Loan Today!

Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you. That email you
received was an opt-out email ... Certainly legal.
If you want to be removed from our mailing list,
I suggest you follow the instructions on the email.

Go ahead and send me a bill... And try to collect.

Clear enough?

Astute readers will recognize that I never claimed what scum like Hobuss was doing was illegal, only that I rejected his offer and counter-proposed one of my own. Of course, by responding, he's now agreed to my terms and is billed accordingly (with copies again going to his local and upstream providers):

You received the following message on 1 Sep 2001 in reply to your spam and yet you continue to spam this domain. Accordingly you have accepted our terms of contract and are being invoiced under Minnesota state statutes and the Universal Commercial Code. Payment in full is due immediately. If you fail to pay in full immediately the invoice will be rendered for collection, appropriate credit reports will be prepared, and we will vigorously pursue judgment in the appropriate venue(s).

For the record, our original offer is included below.

Remove this and all addresses within the farces.com domain from your distribution lists immediately. We have no existing business relationship, nor do I wish to establish one. I don't do business with spammers. Not now. Not ever. You are using my resources for your gain without my permission or compensation. Any further contact from your domain to any address within this domain will indicate tacit agreement to your use of our resources at our published billing rate of US$125 per hour with a 10 hour minimum.

Clear enough?

Invoice

[Professional-looking invoice for US$1250 removed thanks to slashdot's lameness filter. I particularly enjoyed the part on the invoice where it says "Thank you for your business."]

In this case, Hobuss actually got two of these, differing only in invoice number. As you can imagine, this game of Invoice Ping Pong can go on for days, but it rarely does. It almost always immediately devolves into barely intelligible abuse:

From: Jim Hobuss
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 8:18 PM
To: mfraase@farces.com
Subject: RE: Save Money On Your Home Loan Today!

Go ahead and try collect asshole.

And if you even try to file one Judgement against me, I'll
sue you and your LLC. There is no fucking tacit agreement
here. Kiss my ass and fuck off. I've taken your name off our list.

Clear enough?

Oooh, I imagine the spittle at the corners of his mouth are not very attractive. But he's made the mistake of crossing over into clear abuse and maybe even threats, a second and more serious violation of his provider's Acceptable Use Policy. At this point, all I have to do is reply to the message (again with copies to his--they've always been male so far--local and upstream providers) with yet another invoice and the following tasty bit addressed specifically to his providers:

NOTICE TO ISP AND UPSTREAM PROVIDER(S): As you can see this has escalated to abuse on the part of your client. Kindly take whatever action you find necessary with regard to your AUP and notify me directly of anything necessary on my part to expedite the process. Suffice it to say that I expect immediate action with regard to this matter.

Most importantly, he's removed me from his spam list. And I'll bet good money he's at least thinking about the next spam missive he sends. From his next provider, of course.

Now, I probably can't collect on all 3 invoices, but I can certainly make the parasite's life miserable with just one. A quick trip to the county courthouse (until they get their system web-enabled) generates a court date that subsequently renders a judgment that I can easily file with the appropriate agencies. Like fish in a barrel. I've never done it because I haven't had to; my intent is to stop the spamming of my domain, and it's working. A few of these bottom-feeders have, however, paid the invoices. I deposit the checks with a grin.

END QUOTED TEXT

Notes on my editing: To avoid the slashdot lameness filter, I used HTML "blockquote" for the quoted email messages; the original text used '>' characters. Also, some of the punctuation came through as question marks; I tried to replace it with correct ASCII punctuation. (The punctuation was apostrophes and long hyphens.) I did my best not to introduce any errors, but no promises!

steveha

Google Cached here ....

[MartinD]

... Arts & Farces: Fun with Spammers

I had a similar experience...

[Tribbles]

I really enjoy it if the spammers have a telephone number I can call, or better still a fax number.
One spammer I called I tied up his line demanding why I was being spammed for so long, he put the phone down on me.
Another I faxed with an invoice for $300. I live in the UK, and this guy was in the States. About a month later, I received by **post** a print-out of my invoice, with hand-written notes (in orange highlighter pen) effectively telling me to get stuffed, and wishing my mother would die. A few people in the office suggested I reported them for threatening behaviour, but I never got around to it - after all, there's only so many hours in the day...

Re:I had a similar experience...

[aozilla]

A few people in the office suggested I reported them for threatening behaviour, but I never got around to it - after all, there's only so many hours in the day...

There's [sic] only so many hours in the day, yet you had the time to call the spammers and tie up their lines, and fax them? Admit it, the real reason you didn't report them is because you got scared once your fun little passive-aggressive games entered the real world, not some fantasy safe world of fax machines, phone calls, and internet access.

Re:I had a similar experience...

[j-beda]

Whenever I see a listed fax number, I use TPC's email to fax gateway to send a copy of my complaint, along with the message to spamcop.

TPC's coverage is spotty, but often it works, and ties up their line and fax machine for a little while.

Re:I had a similar experience...

[hearingaid]

Want to tie up lines? Easy.

Turn the speakerphone on. Pay occasional attention to the spammer at the other end while getting on with your life.

Faxing is a no-time-investment deal. Run your fave wordpro, use its wizard to make an invoice, and then use the print driver for your faxmodem to send it. Five minutes, tops.

Talking to police, now, takes time.

Re:I had a similar experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking to police, now, takes time.

Turn the speakerphone on. Pay occasional attention to the officer at the other end while getting on with your life.

Re:I had a similar experience...

[hearingaid]

Cops are usually brighter than spammers :)

Granted, in some jurisdictions, the reverse may hold true.

Remember though - the objective when calling the cops is to persuade them to do something; when you're calling the spammer, you're not trying to accomplish anything beyond increasing the spammer's phone bills.

Damn! It has been /.ed

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone put up a mirror please. And I wonder why I can always connect to Goatse.cx but not to /.ed sites. Everywhere I go in the forums I see Goatse this and Goatse that.

Re:Registrars and Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to have got an awful amount of spam lately to an account I pretty much only use to register domains... I don't have a publicly viewable, unmangled version of this address anywhere I can see (whois, nslookup, etc) but still the spam comes...

I'm hestitant to draw conclusions but does anyone else see this?

I hope not...

[Tom7]

I think it'd be a big step backwards if we went to court and somehow got laws against this stuff. It's fun to mess with these guys, who are obviously assholes, but I don't think it's a good idea to encourage legislative regulation of the internet. Think: CDA I, II, DMCA, ....

Spam is just not that bad! If you set up your e-mail client properly and don't publish your e-mail address, it's hardly noticeable. Still, I'd rather press 'd' six times per day than have my email regulated by the government.

have more fun with direct marketers

[derF024]

this is a little perl script i found a while ago that spiders the for-pay search engines (the ones that charge advertisers per click-through) for "bulk mail" and simulates clicking on all of 'em.
i have 6 or 7 machines doing this once an hour, which costs the advertiser about $500 a day. :-)

How slloooowwww does this guy read?

[evil_roy]

How much time can you waste hitting the delete key on your mail client ?

What does this bloke want to get paid in ..micropayments? It's hardly difficult identify spam when you see it.

I've never understood all the indignation and self righteousness that spam generates. Delete it and move on ..it's no big deal.

Re:How slloooowwww does this guy read?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood all the indignation and self righteousness that spam generates. Delete it and move on ..it's no big deal.

My main problem with it is when you get a 'New Mail' type notification, so you interrupt what you're doing to check your mail, only to find its spam. Just like getting a telephone call from a telemarketer.

Now, you may just say "turn off the New Mail notification", but then, of course, one loses that functionality. Which I happen to like. Especially for something like my Yahoo mail account where going in to check it is a somewhat involved procedure, so I don't want to waste time logging in unless there's a reason to do so.

So, that's a more significant reason that spam's annoying that can't be solved by "deleting and moving on." How much anger that's actually worth is, I suppose, for individuals to determine...

Re:How slloooowwww does this guy read?

[clheiny]

Yeh, it is so quick to download 1MB of email over a slow wireless link (9.6 kbps, paying by the minute) only to find out that all of it is a spam-storm for toner bargains in Argentina.
Spam is theft. Whether it's one second or two hours of my time, it's still theft. Maybe you don't find burglaries inconvenient, but I sure as hell do.

Re:How slloooowwww does this guy read?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in some instances it is getting harder to identify spam. I have received many e-mails where the spammer has purposely used a misleading subject line to make the e-mail appear important. I generally receive at least two e-mails a day with the subject line starting with RE: (generally used when replying to an e-mail). What is worse is some will have "RE: IMPORTANT: The information you requested" as a subject line. Unless my dog has learned how to use my computer I cannot fathom how I requested information on breast enhancement surgery. I am male and I am single and I'm pretty sure if I had a girlfriend she wouldn't be happy if I suggested breast enhancement surgery. So exactly how is this information important or something I would request?

The safest thing to do

[cra]

The safest thing to do (by my experience, anyway), is to swallow the pride, and ignore and delete the spam, and thereby NOT confirming to the spammer that he/she has got a valid e-mail address with you as the recipient.

Re:The safest thing to do

[ShortSpecialBus]

Well, by not getting a bounce back from the email servers, that also confirms a valid address. Most invalid addresses send back a Returned Mail: Service unavailable from the Mail Delivery Subsystem, or somethign of the sort.
And it's more fun to fuck with them, and waste as much of their time as they are wasting yours.

Private Citizens

[neksys]

Can private individuals send invoices like this to spammers? I notice in this case that the invoice is for time and expenses to Arts and Farces, LLC.

Re:Private Citizens

[j-beda]

Sure, just send them an invoice from "neksys enterprises" or something similar. Generally there are few if any requirements for small self-employed operators. Your average babysitter, lemonade stand, spam-invoicing-company need not incorporate.

Hmm, terror

[forgoil]

If you could fool the goverment into thinking that spam is terrorism, I bet they would definitly do something about it;)

[Disclaimer, don't even try to take that seriously]

Re:Hmm, terror

[moncyb]

Actually, in the US, that may not be too far from reality. I do remember reading about an anti-terrorist law in the works that would categorize any sort of computer attack as "terrorism." I don't think it would be too far of a streach to classify spamming as a "distributed denial of service" attack under this law...

Re:Hmm, terror

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could fool the government into thinking that spam is something harmful, rather than the small little easily avoidable nuisance that it is?

Entertainment Value of Spam

[liquidweb]

I have simply initiated a policy of placing falicious phone calls to spamming organizations.

The last one I made was to another web hosting corporation, I used a deep south accent and kept asking about how many pullups a 'gigerbyte' was.

Ocassionally he's use a three syllable word, and I'd freak out saying, "Ya'll from the future?". It ended when I started calling him boy, and talking about how "I don't done know them fancy reading boy words" while fake yelling at various red neck named children and referencing the fact that I was "Sick a dem computer boys lording their electronic pants over me".

I did this from the office with mixed reactions from employees.

The only event beating this one was when I actually talked a lady into a telemarketing office into checking three cubes down for me. I had her convinced that I was from the same agency and the autodialer had errored out. My next goal is to start a dispute between employees at a given location. It's hard work even to break them out of the script, let alone get them this far.

Re:Entertainment Value of Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I'd laugh my ass off if you put the calls on a website. ;)

Re:Entertainment Value of Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

liquidweb = Roy D. Mercer?????

What about non-English spammers?

[Skevin]

I get mail all the time from spammers who not only send their message in another language whose charset my mail client doesn't accept, but whose email return addresses are invalid as well. If I give sufficient prior warning, do I attempt to bill the owners of the website advertised in these emails?

Solomon

Re: Hey!...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so small, I could barely see it in this light.

Did you just touch my ass? Save it until it starts itching, ok?

Er! Not quite

[CaptainZapp]

and don't publish your e-mail address, it's hardly noticeable.

This might be true for you, as a private entity. For me, running a business this is no option. I do have a website and the whole idea is to publish my contact information, with as little hassle as possible for prospects.

Do I publish my cell-phone # ? Sure as hell, no! But I make damn sure, that if you dial the business # published on the site is routed to my cell phone, if nobody is in the office with the caller not even noticing.

This is not so easy with an e-mail address: customer.FUCKOFFDIMMWITT.care@YESTHATMEANSYOUdomai n.ASSHOLE.com, doesn't really sound too professional, now does it ?

Re:Er! Not quite

[MentlFlos]

Yeah, I agree. This is why I have several accounts on my mail server. Some private, some very very public (aka, the spamgoeshere account).

If one gets too spammy, I just kill it and make a new one. Actually its not even that complex, they are just aliases :)

Re:Er! Not quite

[onepoint]

>>I do have a website and the whole idea is to publish my contact information, with as little hassle as possible for prospects.

I have a small javascript that might help you. If you like I will post it.

-Onepoint

Re:Er! Not quite

[CaptainZapp]

I have a small javascript that might help you. If you like I will post it.

Thanks for the offer, but it's probably just too much hassle in that specific case.

You might consider poting it anyway, just in case it does some good to another fellow /.er.

Re:Er! Not quite

[mlefevre]

your small javascript is fine for personal sites or sites with a limited audience, but using it will mean excluding anyone who can't or won't use javascript (a significant proportion of web users - i've seen figures of between 5% and 25%).

you can use an image and have people retype the address - excludes those who can't display or see the images. you could use HTML entities or %-encoded URLs, those will work in most cases, but then it doesn't present too much of a challenge for the harvesters.

anything you do to make it harder for the spammers will also make it harder for others. trying to hide from spam is not the solution

Re:Er! Not quite

[onepoint]

I'm sorry for the delay here is the code

<!-- Spam Buster
Many "Email-Harvesting" programs steal email accounts from mailto: tags in your
web page html source. Using this method will prevent these programs from
stealing your email address, simply change the username and domainname to
your email address username and domain name.
-->

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="Javascript">
// Change User Name and Domain Name
username="yourname"
at="@"
domainname="emailserver.com"
document.write("<A HREF='mailto:"+username+""+at+""+domainname+"'>"+u sername+""+at+""+domainname+"</a>")
</script>

I've tried billing them...

[vandan]

Doesn't seem to work for me.
However http://spamcop.net does wonders. A couple of weeks ago I contacted dodgy list-seller, http://www.incnet.com.au and complained about them continuing to sell my details to others when I had emailed AND phoned (it's a local call - I'm in Sydney) and asked to be removed. I talked to a guy who said "Oh YOU'RE the bastard that reported us to Spamcop. We had a LOT of trouble because of that". He then bullshitted on about how he was going to sue me for causing him financial loss. So I called the Australian Direct Marketing Association and put in a formal complaint and haven't heard from either since. I assume he was talking shit at the time and got into trouble over it since.
Anyway, the moral is that Spamcop does seem to do something, and it's a lot easier than personally emailing all involved with each piece of spam you recieve.

Re:I've tried billing them...

[sqlrob]

I get mail constantly advertising a particular domain (3-4 a day for close to a year), and report most of them to SpamCop. The ISP (Genuity) just no longer accepts spamcop complaints on that domain anymore.

www.net-email.net is the domain if anyone else has been having issues with them. Nice, fraudulent information in WHOIS, and as far as I can tell, they are the same spammer as www.web-advs.net

Re:I've tried billing them...

[austad]

The ISP (Genuity) just no longer accepts spamcop complaints on that domain anymore.


That's because that fucking black rocket they have is a nuclear spam generator.

Re:I've tried billing them...

[Tackhead]

> > The ISP (Genuity) just no longer accepts spamcop complaints on that domain anymore.
>
> That's because that fucking black rocket they have is a nuclear spam generator.

Yeah, but since it's not like fucking Genuity ever does anything about the spam complaints they do accept, what difference does it make?

(Assfelching dialinx.net dialups in 65.*.*.* are two fucking thirds of my fucking spam load these days. I'd like to take that black rocket and shove it up their CEO's ass. Sideways. I'd shove it up their abuse department's ass, except they don't have an abuse department.)

Re:I've tried billing them...

[SupaYoda]

Could you say fucking just a few fucking more fucking times just for fucking effect?

*wink*

Just picking on you, but you do have a point. I work as a technician for another ISP (who shall remain nameless due to confidentiality agreements that I signed) that has to go through Genuity. They really don't do much. The ISP that I work for has closed all relaying through their SMTP server because of previous problems with spammers, and if you call with a complaint, the only thing they have for you is an email address for security, who will inform you that Genuity requires more information to process it and take action.

I have my own methods for dealing with spammers. I will do a trace, find their personal email address, and then reply to all of my spam using their email and then subscribe to more spam lists... Give 'em a taste of their own medicine... The folks at bondage.com have to love me for all the business and fresh new email addresses I've gotten them!

You need to give admission to receive emails

[Gery]

Hi,

i just wanted to mention that in Austria you have to give your admission to receive email. Only then, a company may send you an email.

So even "first contact" may only be made if a prior acceptance is available (ex. with a tip-on-card where the user gave his email-adress or whatever...).

Afaik, this is the strongest law in the EC (and of course by far stronger than US-laws).

Gery

Re:You need to give admission to receive emails

[maroberts]

Sure like thats going to work. The UK is planning similar laws, but most spam is sent from outside the long arm of the UK or even EC net police so enforcing this is going to be damn near impossible.

Re:You need to give admission to receive emails

[am 2k]

To those people that complain about spammers not being from the local country: I've already managed to stop the development of a spam tool because of that particular law (yes, I'm Austrian).
So those laws certainly do help.

1885 Reasons why Spam should be illegal

[sh0rtie]

Surely hotmail could take legal action against the people that abuse their networks ?

1885 Reasons why Spam should be illegal

http://www.thinkcollective.org/spam/junkmail.htm l

Deth 2 Spammers

[BillTheKatt]

I'm on a personal anti-SPAMMER crusade. I'm just ticked that hackers waste their time launching DDOS attacking on corporate websites and writing virii. Maybe they should use their skills for a noble purpose, like pounding SPAMMERS. Just create a throw-away email account, post a few messages to USENET, and plenty of targets for DDOS or hacking. Redirect the SPAMMER's webpage to point to SPAMCop or suespammers.org. I posted a single message to USENET with my real email address 5 years ago, and I still get 5-10 SPAMs per day. Hackers and crackers, do the world a favor, go after SPAMMERs. Find their real names and expose them for the world to see.

Re:Deth 2 Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Re:Deth 2 Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of a better white-hat hacker task than this one... (well, short of forcing Microsoft to collapse..)

Re:Deth 2 Spammers

[weinerdog]

Maybe they should use their skills for a noble purpose, like pounding SPAMMERS.

They did this back in late 1997 or early 1998. Massive DoS attacks against Aegis.net finally caused them to reverse their spam-friendly stance and caused the demise of Stanford "Spamford" Wallace's Cyberpromotions, then responsible for probably half of all spam being sent. (Or, at least, received by me.) Walt Rhines' (I think) spam company (I forget the name now), probably the second largest spammer, also disappeared after that.

After that, the volume of spam slowed to a trickle. Without Cyberpromo and other companies willing to send spam, hide the sender's identity, and absorb the reprisals and complaints, spammers resorted to either clumsy attacks from Hotmail or other throwaway accounts, or to finding and exploiting open relays. It has, unfortunately, picked up again, though perhaps not quite to 1997/98 levels. I am guessing that spam filtering makes a significant difference.

Re:Deth 2 Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

Walt Rhines' (I think) spam company (I forget the name now), probably the second largest spammer, also disappeared after that.

Walt's first was Quantcom.com (domain now owned by an anti-spammer), then GTMI.net (sold to TargitInteractive for WAY too much)

It seems to be "Rines" based on a blurb here.

Spam from an admins view

[buss_error]

Out of 13K mail boxes, I get 10K-15K e-mails per day not including those that don't pass our Internet MX (In otherwords, internal e-mail). About 3 in 20 are spam of one sort or another. So that makes about 2250 spams per day.
Lets say it takes about 2 seconds per-person per e-mail to decide it's spam and hit delete.
OK, that's 4,500 seconds, or about 1.25 hours. Lets say the average pay per person with an e-mail box is $221.00 per day.
So, total, it costs my employer 276.25 per day just to delete spam.
Now, let's say that 1 in 100 of those e-mails deleted really wasn't spam, but real e-mail. If the user notices they deleted a legit e-mail, and goes to get it out of the trash, lets say that it takes them about 30 seconds to retreive it. That makes 22 per day, at 30 seconds each, at 221 per day, that is another 41.50 per day.
Grand total now is 317.25 per day completely pissed away because someone wants to sell some lady a penis enlarger, or some gay guy hot teen bitches.

OK, now about content filtering. I've looked at quite a few, and all choke on the amount of e-mail we have. Others, running on unstable OS'es, are a complete joke. The only thing that does seem to work for a week at a time is to block based on IP. If I could find an IP distribution map by country, I'd be a happy camper. Sure, I could zot 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 64/8 and a few others, but more and more these netblocks are getting re-assigned to US companies that I don't want to block.

One thing that's helped quite a bit is blocking all of DialSprit's assignments, and a few others. The RBL helps, but it's too easy to get off and too hard to get on.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[moncyb]

Don't forget about those important emails that are mistaked for spam, deleted, and never recovered. For example, I'm sure quite a few employees get emails from potential customers and accidently delete them. How many disappear do to spam filters? What about lost productivity due to server crashes? Spam contributes to that last one too doesn't it?

How much money do you think this causes your company to lose (on average)? A hundred dollars per day? A thousand? Ten thousand? I'm not trying to argue, just trying help you get a more accurate estimate.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Anonymous Coward]

15000mail/(3spam/20mail)=2250spam
2250spam*2s/spam=4500s
4500s*(1min/60s)*(1h/60min)=1.25h
1.25h*(1workday/8h)=0.15625workday
0.15625workday*221dollar/workday=34.53125dollar

22falsepositives*30s/falsepositive=660s
660s*(1min/60s)*(1h/60min)=0.18333h
0.18333h*(1workday/8h)=0.022917workday
0.022917workday*221dollar/workday=5.06458dollar

34.53125dollar+5.06458dollar=39.59583dollar

Unless all the people behind the 13000 mailboxes make 221 bucks per hour, your off by about an order of magnitude.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Rob-G]

You did not even count your own time on trying to block them! The company pays for your time too.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[ananke]

funny you mention those blocks. few irc channels i often attend to get/provide technical help, those are the ones on permament bans.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[slashBastard]

Yep, it takes up a load of time sorting out, but spam can also seriously hog system resources. I'm not just talking about routers and switches all over the net....this morning when I checked my Hotmail I had 1741 mails in my junk mail folder. They were all from the same address. If they had spammed my work address instead of my Hotmail I'm sure our poor little mail server would have fallen on it's ass, thus causing our business untold headaches and costing us money.

To anyone who says spammers have the right to do what they do, I would say they should also be held responsible for their actions.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Howie]

Sure, I could zot 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 64/8 and a few others, but more and more these netblocks are getting re-assigned to US companies that I don't want to block.

I don't understand this part. The implication is that all spam comes from "other countries". As someone in another country, I find that more or less all my spam comes from either the USA, or (for reasons I've yet to decide) China or Taiwan.

The US spam typically is for products I couldn't buy even if I wanted to (call a 1-800 number, don't ship outside US) or that it's illegal for them to sell (financial products). The chinese spam could be for nose flutes for all I know, since it's in big5 - I'm not sure why they bother.

I agree with your general point (I run a similar sized mail server), but why those netblocks?

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Anonymous Coward]

"15000mail*(3spam/20mail)=2250spam" would be better, and the "your" should be a "you're".

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Anonymous Coward]

you ignorant slut. that's where the open relays are.

yeah the sender was american, but the spam itself was able to be sent because ignorant motherfuckers in other countries, such as yourself misconfigure their SMTP servers.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[ion]

If one computer isnt fast enough to handle 893743340548793 spam emails a day, then distribute the spam detection to more computers.
Since the emails arent related to each other, or yes they are. Most likely the same people will over and over again email you, were spam email addresses are different, so
1) keep a list of "good email addresses"
possibly all your previous customers
2) set up a beowulf cluster to parse through
every incomming email and catogorize it as
spam or not. Give each node a fair number of
emails to parse, and your mailserver load
should fall.

Howto implement it ??
1? internal email server that does the final delivery, and also takes cares of internal email. Then have either a number of mailserver that recieves from the world, or one that does that and distributes it to the beowulf cluster, and then those machines delivers to the internal mailserver.

ion++

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Anonymous Coward]

Your slashdot post took at the very least 30 seconds (lameness filter) to post. Assuming all 13K employees of your company were as bad as you, posting on company time, that would be 13K*30=108 hours, or 86 times as much. At your above rate of $221 per hour (you screwed up), if everyone in your company posted a single post to slashdot, that would cost the company $19153. Which still isn't all that much money for a company with 13,000 fucking employees.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[ivan256]

13K e-mails is very few. What software have you tried that chokes on such a small amount? You should try procmail. It has a very good message scoring system that I use for a spam filter. It catches 90% of incoming spam, and I haven't had a false positive in over two years. Also, on a relativly modest linux box (I use a P2 233Mhz) you can filter tens of thousands of messages an hour. You should be able to incorporate such a filter into your environment even if you are windows based without changing your client setup, and using your existing server software.

I would be happy to send you my rules file if you are interested.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Anonymous Coward]

That "your"/"you're" thing bugs me too/

Re:Spam from an admins view

[lobsterGun]

As one of my former employers said, "Thats the cost of doing business."

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't most business managers look for ways to cut costs? Sounds like your former employer was a bit too passive.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[buss_error]

Spammers use servers in other contries to make prosecution hard/impossible. The spam we get isn't from some spammer in another country, it's a US spammer using a server offshore. As a rule, I find offshore e-mail (that isn't spam) is more welcome form of e-mail than, say, from my congressman.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, the world isn't that simple anymore. For
example, suse.com has servers on 202/8

Re:Spam from an admins view

[buss_error]

Actually, all my servers are locked down as far as services offered (the MX doesn't do web pages, so httpd is off), my configs are all up to date and don't permit unauthorized relays.

I think the chief problem here is all the OS'es that came with relay enabled by default. This isn't Unix specific by the way, plenty of other OS'es, and some databases (Lotus Notes for one) used to come with SMTP on, even if not used, and permitting relay for any that care to send an e-mail.

Is this the fault of the admin involved? Well, yes, it is, but sometimes it hard to remember you're supposed to drain the swamp when you are hip deep in large, scally, sharptoothed preditors. I've been guilty of that once or twice myself, when I was very young and innocent. I was fortunate that I saw it before it was used.

I like the fact that sendmail for RedHat comes enabled only for the loopback address. If you don't know how to configure sendmail, you just arn't going to use it. That's an instant off for spammers.

Re:Spam from an admins view

[buss_error]

0.15625workday*221dollar/workday=34.53125dollar

Correct. Sorry, I made a mistake calculating the total, and it does throw the total off by an order of mag.

Oops. I guess that's why I keep getting more in my check than they think I should! *grin*

Caching Pages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Slashdot...

Maybe you guys could provide links to versions of these pages that have been cached on Slashdot... That way, when the original site gets /.ed we can still get ahold of the content.

Eh?

Josh Knowles
chasingATmailDOTutexasDOTedu
http://www.auscillate.com/josh/

For all you Missourians

[Mustang Matt]

I'm working with State Rep. Carl Bearden to get our spam laws up to par. We're currently adopting a several sections of the Washington laws, and hopefully coming up with some of our own in the near future.

I've submitted the details of my success twice to slashdot but my stories are always rejected.

I strongly encourage people in other states to contact their state reps and ask for better laws! It really IS that simple!

I was amazed at how willing my State Rep. was to learn about the problems and what possible solutions can be put in place.

For all you people complaining about Spam, if you haven't done your part and tried to make a difference, quit all the fuss.

Re:For all you Missourians

[bani]

I've submitted the details of my success twice to slashdot but my stories are always rejected.

Yep. slashdot is just B R O K E N .

I suggest you try kuro5hin.org instead.

Re:For all you Missourians

[wiredog]

Sounds interesting. If slashdot doesn't want it, how about submitting it to k5?

An easy way to avoid new spam.

[xenoweeno]

I've used this method for a couple of years with great success. What is this magic? Setting the href in your "email me" links to:

javascript:window.location='mailto:tda'+'vis@tda '+ 'vis.org'

...doing appropriate substitution for your own email address, of course. It would probably also be useful to include an explanation in case someone doesn't have JavaScript enabled.

The only problem I have now are legitimate mailing lists, like the PHP lists, which archive stuff to the web without obscuring addresses similarly. sigh.

Re:An easy way to avoid new spam.

[Anonymous Coward]

spam me.

Re:An easy way to avoid new spam.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote a PHP script that detects the browser type, and if it doesn't match EXACTLY one of IE 4, NS 4.x, or Mozilla, then it posts a fake email address instead of my real one.

Re:An easy way to avoid new spam.

[YKnot]

The only problem I have now are legitimate mailing lists, like the PHP lists, which archive stuff to the web without obscuring addresses similarly.

This, asshole-ACs who post mailto links, "friends" who send electronic greeting cards and using email adresses in circumstances which don't allow for obfuscation are reasons why the problem needs to be solved on a different level. It is absolutely necessary that the simple knowledge of your email adress is worthless to spammers because that knowledge alone is either not enough to send you mail or because it is too costly to send unsolicited (or fake solicited) mail to you. These are the only attack vectors which work.

Re:An easy way to avoid new spam.

[Darth RadaR]

javascript:window.location='mailto:tda'+'vis@tda'+ 'vis.org'

...doing appropriate substitution for your own email address, of course. It would probably also be useful to include an explanation in case someone doesn't have JavaScript enabled.


Here's some more cute ways to mung up your email address...

xeno@yourpants.domainname.com
(take off yourpants to email me)

or just put this in your .sig
%>mail `echo xeFOOo@domaiFOOFOOame.com|sed s/FOO/n/g`

Of course, if people can't figure these out, you probably don't want to be getting email from them.

Re:An easy way to avoid new spam.

[Ramadog]

Not everyone uses one of those browsers. At the moment I am using Knoqueror. I know people that still use Netscape 3.x. So in that case you could be blocking legitament people.

Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I just noticed the new spam icon. So whats up with that? Perhaps Hormel & friends didn't care for the old one?

Spam is Purely an American creation

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think i have *ever* recieved spam from a non-american company

surely the best way to stop spam would be to make it illegal for any american business to advertise via email, this would stop 99% of spam

Re:Spam is Purely an American creation

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think i have *ever* recieved spam from a non-american company

Then you must only be getting your mail through a local BBS with only local American feeds or you're not reading your headers. Some examples....
---(Spain)
from 4.48.70.79 (PPPa50-ResaleMiamiB1-1R7353.dialinx.net [4.48.70.79]) by correo.internet.interoute.es
---(Norway)
From: pebakke@online.no
Reply-To: Sales234@mail.com
To: pebakke@online.no
---(Taiwan)
from 4.4.49.228 ([4.4.49.228]) by email.charder.com.tw with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3)
---(Taiwan)
from tpts5 by ara.seed.net.tw with SMTP id Pb9bVJn9fBqwW0dMh4ya6; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:11:09 +0800
---

I could go on forever. Some countries are so bad that I just send anything from .tw, .kr, etc. straight to the bit-bucket.

Some Medival Torture for Spammers

[t0qer]

Anyone watch Jerry Springer last Friday? They had a 400lb guy on that was wearing a spam suit, I had to put down what I was eating when I saw it. Perhaps they should make spammers watch that episode over and over, with monty pythons "SPAM SPAM SPAM" played in the background. Pound the word SPAM into their heads so hard that they become lucid and start repeating the word SPAM SPAM SPAM uncontrollably.

Or we could wire them up to this little evil device. Connect the router traffic led to a relay, connect the other end of the relay to the button on a stun gun. Everytime there is a reply to their spam they get a shock.

Hmm i'm still feeling evil here folks. Construct a device that is like the house arrest anklets they make DUI people wear except put a electric shocker on there. Unless they repeat "I am a spammer idiot who is nothing more than a sunday driver with bandwidth" into the voice recognition unit on the anklet every 2 minutes, they recieve a shock.

Maybe we should just go back to the good 'ol town square stockades and sell rotten fruit for some good 'ol public humiliation.

Re:Some Medival Torture for Spammers

[Tremo]

Nah, the stocks is too light for them. Give'm the cat-o-nine tails.

Missouri is following suit

[Mustang Matt]

I've been working with my State Rep to get laws similar to Washington's put in place. Shouldn't be long now! I wish EVERYONE would contact their state rep and ask for legislation. It would save us all a lot of time, headaches and money.

How about some new spam....Lawsuit Spamming

[udelslayer]

How about we grind up all the workers of those stupid little nothing companies that spaM all the time and put them in a can so we can sell it to their geriatric relatives.... No matter what laws they'll make, there will always be ways around rules and nothing will change. How about those clever applications for credit cards? Anyone know how to stop the banks from sending me 8 a week, and without going postal?

Re:How about some new spam....Lawsuit Spamming

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the AC post. You can contact the Federal Credit opt-out phone number and specify that you do not want to receive pre-approved credit card offers. Here is a link to some info about how to get out of them.

Re:How about some new spam....Lawsuit Spamming

[StuffYourReligion]

As at least one other poster mentioned, there are real ways to reduce the number of those credit card applications you get, but I don't get quite as many myself, so I haven't taken any such drastic measures.

I just spend about 10 seconds per solicitation writing "No thanks, please take me off your mailing list" next to the checkbox for the only choice they give you ("YES!"), sticking it in the postpaid envelope and mailing it in to them at their cost.

It's certainly less effective than telling the credit reporting agencies you don't want to receive such solicitations, but my feeble mind derives enough small pleasure from it to remain entertained. I do the same thing with most postal spam I get. I know the postage they have to pay to receive my rebuffal is nothing to them, but if thousands and thousands of us did it...

So...

[gvonk]

What's his phone number?

Procmail helper script to "connect" spammers...

[21mhz]

... with their provider's contact persons.
Usage in procmail:

:0
* From .*\.spammer\.com
* Received: .*\.carelessisp\.net
| spam-forward -s 'Oops, they did it again' \
postmaster@carelessisp.net

Here's the script itself:

#!/bin/bash
#
# Procmail helper to redirect spam messages.
#

[ "$SENDMAIL" = "" ] && SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail
[ "$SENDMAILFLAGS" = "" ] && SENDMAILFLAGS=-oi

subject='[SPAM ALERT]'
while getopts s: opt; do
subject="$OPTARG"
done

shift $(( $OPTIND - 1 ))

dest="$*"
if [ -z "$dest" ]; then
echo "Usage: $0 [-s subject] recipient ... <message" >&2
exit 1
fi

to_line="${*/%/,}"
to_line="${to_line%,}"

( cat <<EOF
From: $LOGNAME
To: $to_line
Subject: $subject
X-BeenThere: $LOGNAME@$HOST
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello,

This is an automatically generated spam alert.
Feel free to contact me if you have any issues related to this.
The (partial) listing of the message that triggered it
is included below.

EOF
head -n 100
) | $SENDMAIL $SENDMAILFLAGS $dest

Re:Procmail helper script to "connect" spammers...

[Anonymous Coward]

No need for the subshell (and what's with the "head -n 100"?). Observe:

cat <<EOF | $SENDMAIL $SENDMAILFLAGS $dest
From: $LOGNAME
To: $to_line
Subject: $subject
X-BeenThere: $LOGNAME@$HOST
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello,

This is an automatically generated spam alert.
Feel free to contact me if you have any issues related to this.
The (partial) listing of the message that triggered it
is included below.

EOF

Re:Procmail helper script to "connect" spammers...

[21mhz]

Simple: head outputs a part of the triggering message fed to standard input. The subshell concatenates two outputs to feed them to sendmail.

Re:Procmail helper script to "connect" spammers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected - I forgot data was coming via stdin. The subshell is justified. Give me a while to wake up. :-)

Re:Procmail helper script to "connect" spammers...

[smnolde]

My exim .forward file to filter spam emails:

if $reply_address contains "@com.tw" and
$reply_address does not contain "postmaster@" or
$h_received: contains "sol.control.com" or
$h_from: contains "safe-mail.net" or
$h_received: contains "216.126.161.44" or
$h_received: contains "popsite.net" or
$h_received: contains "thrunet.ne.kr" or
$h_received: contains "hinet.net" or
$h_received: contains "net.tw" or
$h_from: contains "net.tw" or
$h_from: contains "mail2000.com.tw" or
$h_from: contains "choicescom@163.com" or
$h_received: contains "163.com" or
$h_received: contains "travelincentives@aol.com" or
$h_received: contains "getawayandtravel@hotmail.com" or
$h_received: contains "202.105.16.164" or
$h_received: contains "bunutanko3@excite.com" or
$h_from: contains "bunutanko3@excite.com" or
$h_received: contains "intnara.com" or
$h_from: contains "intnara.com" or
$h_to: contains "hinet.net" or
$h_received: contains "61.13.229.84" or
$h_received: contains "computername" or
$h_received: contains "blick.com.tw" or
$h_received: contains "thirdage.com" or
$h_received: contains "216.126.160.29" or
$h_received: contains "ethome.net.tw" or
$h_received: contains "shoplet.com" or
$h_received: contains "shoplet.net" or
$h_received: contains "ctc-control.com" or
$h_received: contains "hot.ee" or
$h_sender: contains "mail.ee" or
$h_: contains "AmyWilson" or
$h_: contains "T_crow133"
then
seen finish
endif

The above seems to work pretty well for email coming to me. I haven't recieved spam in at least a week now... But it ain't over I'm sure.

Re:Procmail helper script to "connect" spammers...

[Legion303]

I have a number of spam filters, but the two that seem to chop out 90-95% of the spam are these: "from: contains yahoo.com" and "body: contains -Legion

A page full of fake email addresses

[Malcs]

I've come to try this, something I found on another site. As long as the bots are going to invade my site I thought I'd give them a page of 10,000 fake email addresses to take back home with them. A series of randomly generated names linking to randomly generated e-mail addresses.

http://www.towerofbabel.com/antispam/

You can make a spammer miserable right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get in touch with Jim Hobuss, the spammer in the story. Here are his details:
jimhobuss@home.com
JJH ONE Enterprises, LLC
Hobuss Jim
17525 SE Marie Street
Portland, OR
97236, US
(503)491-9420
Isn't that great? You can call this gentleman and tell him what you think of him!

Re:You can make a spammer miserable right now

[Anonymous Coward]

don't post my personal info on here you homo, unless you're gonna post some pictures of young boys

Re:You can make a spammer miserable right now

[Anonymous Coward]

dont worry i have, pwwaaahhhaaarrrr

Re:You can make a spammer miserable right now

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks!

took all of our magazines at work (~75), ripped out the 'free issues' cards, and signed this shitbag up for them

Spam the Pizza Companies!

[VValdo]

I know this plan is a joke, but maybe there's a way to do it without causing damage to the pizza companies but rather to the spammers themselves.

Maybe the key is to start ordering shitty products from one spam company and sending to another's whois mailing address. We can call this program like "Spam-Swap(TM)" and even make them opt-out of it.

"Sorry if you've received this other spammer's product in error. Reply to be removed from our Spam-Swap(TM) List."

W

(ps. this is a joke too...)

Re:Spam the Pizza Companies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad.

What I do, is I use the previous spammers email (assuming it's legitimate) and use it to unsubscribe from the current spammer. That way, they all get on each other's spammer list.

Of course, I'm pretty much spam-free now.

Anti-spam is fine, get a filter, and quit bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting sick of the geek-ass loud mouths who exhibit their psuedo-bravado in their quest to rid the world of this evil force called spam. For the love of all humanity, we ALL hate getting junk e-mail, but just DELETE it, FILTER it, and just shut the hell up about it.

I can see the veins in your forehead pumping blood faster and faster as you read this. Just take a deep breath, calm down, look in the mirror and say to yourself, I need therapy. Things are okay. I'm not sure what I dislike more -- anti-spam fundamentalists or getting spam. Hell, I may just book that trip to Vegas, send a guy in Sudan my bank account number and pray that he'll deposit the $25M and not drain my checking balance, pick up a zero percent interest Visa, and open up a THIRD merchant account, just to side with the bad guys.

I once had a call at work...

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a credit card company that does much advertising on the internet with ads which Im sure all of you must have seen many times.

One day on the phone this guy called me up asking for a billing address. At first I assumed it was just another guy asking where to send his payment to. But then he clarified that no, he wanted us to pay him.

Asked him for what.

He said a pop up ad appeared on his screen and he charges a dollar a minute for when its on his screen.

As much as I hate advertisements I really had to explain a few things to this guy.

I told him charging by the minute is useless since its up to him how long its on his screen, all he has to do is close the window. I also advised him that its the website he was visiting that decided to have ads on the site and suggested he complain to them.

I then just had to ask him if hes ever ACTUALLY gotten any money doing this. He of course said no, but he just started.

After that call I really felt sad for the guy. He obviously hadnt thought this little plan of his through. Not to mention what a pathetic creature he is that he had nothing better to do in his free time than to find our customer service number and explain his scheme to me.

I figure anonymous email may be different of course because theres no matter of controlling it. For pop up ads, you can not see the ads simply by visiting websites that dont decide to make money by having them. But I still doubt in the long run this "charging" for precious valuable time is going to work.

For gods sake!

[testharness]

Realizing that I didn't know anybody lame enough to send me anything in all caps, I opened it anyway

Where have you been for the past few years - how many viruses have been passed around using emails in this manner ( ok you may not be using M$ Outlook, but come on ).

Anyway you say it was in HTML format, so all they sent you was probably the text - as soon as you opened it it grabed the images of their site ( perhaps increasing hit counts ). So THEY did not pay for the band width - you did.

As for the costs of marketing, if you can blankly cover the, almost, whole market cost effectively then why not. You piss of alot of people, get some business from others, and increase your advertisment potential. It makes good business sence.

Do these people really make money?

[FunkyRat]

The general concensus seems to be that spammers do their thing because there is at least a small percentage of recipients who actually send these people money.

Can this really be true that there are enough people out there who are so gullible as to make this profitable...!? or is it that the ones who are really making money in this game are those selling lists of e-mail addresses to spammers? I know that in the online porn industry, the real money to be made is not in the porn sites themselves, but in selling services to the people setting up porn sites. I would expect something similar is going on here, especially since I've gotten a great deal of spam lately telling me how lucrative a business 'mass e-mail marketing' is, and how I should act now to 'get in on the ground floor' by buying their CD-ROM's full of e-mail addresses 'for the low, reduced rate of $99.95.' It looks to me like spam mailing is just another get rich quick scheme.

I'm asking this as a legitimate question. Do people really make money by spamming or are the only ones making money those who are supporting this "industry?" I mean, if .025% of the population is stupid enough to send you money for something like fake Viagara work-alike pills at $25 a pop and you send e-mail to 1,000,000 addresses, that's $6,250 -- well, with those kinds of numbers I'm tempted to start spamming too. After all, if the idiots are willing to pay...

Disclaimer: Before you flame me for admitting to the same thing you've likely thought of yourself, rest assured. I am not about to start spamming anytime soon. However, I think the question is relevant. Is there anybody actually making money at this game?

Re:Do these people really make money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew a guy who sadly tried buying viagra from a spam offer (real, not herbal for some obscenely cheap price (he apparently didn't know TANSTAAFL)) and he emailed them his debit card number. Surprise, surprise, he was charged twice what he was supposed to be charged, and this caused him to be overdrawn (he had left just enough in his account to cover the charge), but the bank decided to be generous and instead of voiding the transaction due to insufficient funds, they sent his account negative. Also I got to empirically learn what I've only known from theory, arguing about charges on debit cards are no fun. So yes, probably some people make money off of fraud, as PT Barnum said there's a mark born every minute.

However, I think that most small-time spammers are not likely making money, and that as you point out, the money is mostly going to lie in supporting the get rich quick people. While each get rich quick meme tends to spread well, luckily the same one isn't too likely to re-infect the victim. Which means that eventually spam will become a little less well known.

What one can do to help things along a bit, is if any spam actually has company contact info (especially a 1-800 number) call them up and complain about their hiring of spammers and that you will never buy any of their products.

Re:Do these people really make money?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only money made in spamming is selling lists of addresses and Super Secret Software to Turn Your Computer into a Mail Server to other potential spammers.

web site down

[Anonymous Coward]

how about checking with the site before you slash dot them.. maybe you can mirror the article...far too many site slash dot here are down after because of traffic

Sorry, not funny.

[jcr]

This amounts to stealing from the pizza vendor, and that's as bad as spamming.

Sure, it would probably make the guy unable to order pizza from anyone in the city as soon as they set up a list of addresses that get frequent bogus orders, but it would still be wrong to do it.

-jcr

Re:SpamCop, and Nagging Admins with complaint Emai

[waerloga01]

you should have put his email address on here so all the slashdotters could use his email addie for a spam-trap *evil grin*

If only you could block ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hotmail Member Services.

Request

[Asic Eng]

Please record these calls and put them on a website. :)

Re:Request

[liquidweb]

I may, and I better make quickies.

Which reminds me, when was the last time slashdot HAD quickies?

send your spam to the FTC

[vscjoe]

The FTC has an address where they accept spam ("unsolicited commercial e-mail") in order to take action on it. The address is uce@ftc.gov (yup, no cloaking here: spammers--do your worst). In fact, according to this press release, the FTC has been accepting UCE at that address for a couple of years.

Re:send your spam to the FTC

[Stonehand]

Interesting. I'd forwarded some to them, 'tho I'd thought that was only for the FTC's information gathering.

Relevant to some might be the US Postal Inspectors Service, at fraud@uspis.gov -- to which I resend pretty much every pyramid scheme I get that involves a US postal address, which is pretty much all of them; the enforcement branch of the Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement@sec.gov, to which I resend probable attempts at securities manipulation; and netpiracy@spa.org, for people who appear to be advertising for pirated software (plus I resend such to relevant specific companies that are likely large enough to have anti-piracy people, such as Microsoft).

Re:send your spam to the FTC

[onepoint]

Just a note, most good spam software has a built in feature to prevent you from spamming the .GOV also you can add certain addresses to their filters.

-Onepoint

I want that note!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the site is ./'d already, I can't see if it's posted. But I'd love to get my hands on a note that will get a spammer to pay the bill - he must have some nicely worded ninja in there.

Reminds me of Sam Jain incident

[Anonymous Coward]

A few months back when some sleezy companys ICQ logs hit the net, in one he mentioned he would write up a form legal letter that he downloaded off the net.

One of the people commenting on it (who was a lawyer) mentioned that in legal letters they never demand or threaten instead request (afaik ianal).

Doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

trust me. I have a work address that is getting flooded with spam from *.pm0.net (I don't know why IS don't just block them).

I haven't replied to any but there is still 10+ emails a day trying to sell me crap which I can't buy (because I'm not in the US) and wouldn't.

Re:Doesn't work

[nafmo]

Yeah, pm0.net currently spam me at about 10 messages per day as well. Currently I've configured my procmail filter to return all their mail to postmaster@mindsharedesign.com (that's their parent domain). I tried abuse@ first, but that address bounces.

Why can't someone just shoot these bastards?

Re:Doesn't work

[flewp]

Why can't someone just shoot these bastards?

Because that's too quick and possibly painless, depending on where you shoot them that is. They deserve to starve to death in stocks.

Re:Anti-spam is fine, get a filter, and quit bitch

[Keith_Beef]

You're missing the point, Mr anonymous coward.

I'm on a dial-up account. That means that every minute I spend connected is costing me money. Now, if I have to spend time connected to download a long HTML message with images in it, that is costing me money, albeit a small amount for a single message. Let's say it cost me 0.03 Thalers. If I now get 100 of these in a month, it's just cost me 3 Thalers.

You suggest filtering... but that happens after I've downloaded the messages, so doesn't lower the cost. It's not a realistic option.

And this is before I start factoring in costs for

• wear and tear: keyboard (extra typing to delete message)
  
• wear and tear: mouse (extra pointing and clicking to delete message)
  
• wear and tear: hard disc (extra read/write operations)
  
• depreciation: hardware loses its value fast, so every second occupied has a high cost during the first year of use
  
• my time: 0.9 Thalers per minute
  

Hmm... that makes for a low cost per spam mail received. But, like most companies, I'm going to set a "minimum invoice charge" to cover fixed costs associated with drawing up each invoice and chasing up payment. Lets say 30 Thalers. And now, we factor in a percentage for "bad payers". Let's double it.

All in all, I feel quite justified in billing for 60 Thalers per spam received.

Re:Registrars and Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. My original NIC handle (two digits - pretty old by some measures) has been harvested, sold, and resold to every two-bit spammer out there.
I finally had to turn the entire domain into a spam trap, with a bogus MX entry.

This particular MX happens to be a real nuisance for the spammers, since all it does is listen on port 25 , connect back to port 25 on the calling system, and pass bytes back and forth. When they're an open relay (most of the time), the resulting loop storm sucks down tons of disk space in logs on their end.

The best part is when they don't have rudimentary loop checkers (ala Received: headers). They go for DAYS! I've looped up some moron sites for over a week. All it costs me is bandwidth, and I don't really notice it running.

So, back to your question - yes, your whois records will be harvested. Do what I did. Make subdomains of another domain, and put your handle(s) under that. foo@bar.sublevel.example.com. When that one gets harvested, change 'bar' to something else, and make the old one point to a tarpit or something else similarly interesting.

FWIW, I've also tagged the *postal* address in my whois, since LOTS of places use that to send snail-mail spam. I just got an AOL turd this week with an address that only occurs in NSI's database. Thanks, lamers...

Spam does work

[Ashcrow]

Well, it kind of does. It seems that if they send you the same basic spam letter with the same subject you remember it. And if you remember it it's as good as a TV comercial or radio ad.

I've heard people talking about specific spam before in university classes. Sad thing was I knew what they were talking about.

Re:Spam does work

[flewp]

I don't know about you, but I don't buy products because I remember them. I buy them because I have a need for them and/or want them, not to mention can afford them. If anything, even if I wanted something, I wouldn't buy it if it was pushed on me without my asking...

A plea to the -1 crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

It is your duty as trollers to post nice porno links. Please post direct links to pretty porno pictures, not just the sites. You should really post links to pictures where if you go up to the directory level it actually gives you a directory index with lots of pretty pictures. You have to do this! Please! I'm about ready to pop!!!

You're the problem

[ebcdic]

"As much as I hate advertisements"... they're fine so long as I'm the one making money out of it.

Is /. working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just 15 posting after several hours? Or is it only me?

Some nice spamcop reporting scripts

[Erik Hensema]

When you're running a system with procmail (don't we all?) and better yet: use a mailer which supports piping messages to stdout, you can use these scripts to report spam to spamcop semi-automatically.

I don't get these people

[Yuioup]

What I don't understand about spammers is that they expect you to buy their products after you've been annoyed by them. I never buy any products from advertisers who:

1) spam my mailbox
2) use popups
3) annoy me with flash animations that take up 80% of the webpage I'm trying to read
4) have floating flash animations which seek out your mouse pointer
5) etc..

Yuioup

Re:I don't get these people

[mickeyreznor]

What I don't understand about spammers is that they expect you to buy their products after you've been annoyed by them.

The reason is that they all do their marketing tests with monkeys. Monkeys like flashy things. Since they figure monkeys and humans are "similar enough" they figure that's the best way to go.

Procmail is your friend

[The Mutant]

I like the idea of billing spammers since they hit hit my server (you-suck.com) at lot, but I keep my primary email address on one of the more Unix savvy ISP's around.

They maintian a set of shared Procmail filters; basically the idea is we forward all spam received to a special Panix email address, and if its deemed to indeed be spam, they add enough information to the filters so we don't receive any more junk from this particular source.

It seems to come in waves, probably depending upon how much spammers change their tactics, but I don't really get that much spam - overall averaging maybe half dozen out of about fifty or sixty legitimate emails per day.

By contrast I also have a shell account at The World, and don't use procmail there since I've never used nor distributed that email address.

Last week I opened my email there for the first time in about one year and MY GOD!IT WAS FULL OF SPAM!

Re:Procmail is your friend

[cloudmaster]

I do something simlar on my employer's system. Employees forward me spam, and I put the from address into the mailserver's access file. It's nice, because I've got postfix configured to use a mysql database type, so not only do all the mail servers share an aliases file, but they also share the access database (and my home mail server gets to use it too). It's also nice to put in specific reject messages for annoying quasi-spam things, like YDI's "550 your wireless products are the worst I have ever used" response. :) I suppose that I could just set up bind to run my own RBL and have the same distributable effect, but the database makes the possiblity of publishing the smammer list to the web (or whatever) more feasible, and makes automating the list updating more easy as well... :)

Spammer: "Consequential and more severe actions.."

[camusflage]

Declan McCullagh's Politech has a post with a reply from the spammer. In it, he says "Therefore,
consequential and more severe actions will now be initiated and followed through to conclusion. An acceptable conclusion is no longer a removal of the Web page."

Want some cheese with that whine?

terms of service and email harvesting

[Multics]

I have on my website two mailto: addresses that are in html comments. Sitting next to both are comments that these shall not be used for SPAM. They are do_not_spam1@ and do_not_spam2@. According to my terms of use, anyone who uses them is up for (us)$10,000 per use + cost of collection.

An email address harvester apparently from:
bidmain.com
came through took them then used them.

I sent them a bill with a 30-day deadline to pay. Bidmain's information, BTW is:
iBIZCAST (BIDMAIN-DOM)
302, 1008-2, Daechi-dong,
Kangnam-gu, Seoul 135-280
KR

But more interestingly, their phone numbers are:
822-564-3404 fax: 822-539-0925

So far, for my complaint, my spam per day has trippled. They don't use the above addresses, but they sure do use the address I used to send them the bill. The 30 days is up in about a week.

My take on all of this is SPAMMERs are criminals. They are taking huge amounts of money from us (us == owners of systems).

If anyone wants to join in class action against the criminal above, I'd like to hear from you. Reply below.

Thanks!

-- Multics

actually, he won

[jonbrewer]

The guy who called likely cost your company a dollar. Unless you were very poorly paid, in a conversation lasting long enough for you to "lay down the law" he actually achieved his objective.

I personally value my time too much to fuck around with spammers or telemarketers (aside from adding myself to DMA do not mail and do not call lists).

Spammers lie to net retailers

[Snowfox]

I buy a few things online each week, and I create a different mail alias at my domain for each online retailer, and tack a random 'apartment' on as well, for example, if Slashdot had a store, I'd be "slash@mydomain", and I'd add "Apartment sdt" to my mailing address.

I always make it abundantly clear that I don't want my contact information shared. If there isn't policy on the site explicitly promising not to share my information if that's what I choose, I don't buy there.

More than a dozen times, I've gotten mail advertising the original store, followed by a flood of random spam to the same address. When I contact the store owner, they insist that they had an agreement with the 3rd party that they wouldn't use the list of addresses for anything else. "Then why am I getting mail to UglyShoes@mydomain when you're the only one who ever got that address?" They lose a customer, and I cancel a mail alias.

Then again, not all retailers are honest either.... God forbid you share your name with Radio Shack.

Three years ago I bought a soldering iron at Radio Shack, the address including an "Apartment RSHK", again requesting no mailings or address sharing. Now, if I had a dollar for every shit mailing and magazine I'd been automatically subscribed to at "Apartment RSHK", I'd be a rich man by now.

Again, it doesn't seem to stop with Radio Shack sharing. I think many of the companies Radio Shack shared with turned around and sold my address as well, because it went from Radio Shack mailings to Columbia House to Playboy to Victoria's Secret to Lillian Vernon to Fingerhut to god knows what. Half my specifically targeted junk mail comes to "Apartment RSHK", and about half comes to "Apartment SN", from my long-ago subscription to Science News.

Re:Spammers lie to net retailers

[camusflage]

God forbid you share your name with Radio Shack.

At least Rat Shack will let you not give your info, when you say you'd rather not. When pressed, I usually start "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue". Most of the time, they take a clue and stop asking. One guy at an appliance store once, however, just didn't get it. "Washington DC, huh? You just visiting here?" It somewhat pained me when I told him that he had the choice of bothering the president, not bothering me, or not making a comission. Needless to say, he took option B.

A more reasoned response would be to do the homework ahead of time. Find out what their corporate headquarters address is, and what the CEO's name is, and use that.

Re:Spammers lie to net retailers

[Dimensio]

With postal junk mail, I always write "RETURN TO SENDER" on the envelope and drop it back into the mailbox. It's my understanding that the sender must pay postage for the returned mail -- even if that isn't the case my junk postal mail has dropped significantly since I started the practice.

Unfortunately there isn't necessarily an analog for e-mail. Perhaps you might consider setting up a filter so that junk e-mail addressed to a store-specific mail alias is auto-forwarded to every contact address that you can dig up for the offending online retailer they might get a hint?

Re:Spammers lie to net retailers

[youngmonkinthecathed]

Actually, the taxpayer pays for this. I have never been charged for sending mail to nonexistent addresses (accidentally) or to the deceased (unfortunately).

Re:Spammers lie to net retailers

[Dimensio]

Hrmm, it might have something to do with the mail class as well -- an individual First Class stamped letter may be returned with different rules than bulk mail.

I recall a story about a church that mailed out religious-themed videotapes to every address that they could snatch up within their city -- and then they had to pay return postage when a number of recipients returned the video (often with bricks attached to increase the postage). I'll have to investigate the law further.

Re:Spammers lie to net retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahahahaha this just makes me laugh my arse off. Fucking churches will never learn.

Re:Spammers lie to net retailers

[Weaselmancer]

Couldn't agree more. My method was to use a different middle initial for snailmail, and disposable email addresses from flashmail or hotmail or whatever.

But you have to do it each and every time! Never let up. I'll share my best spam story to illustrate.

It had been a while since I'd seen a concert. I live in Ohio, and decided to see the Red Hot Chili Peppers at a local venue. I won't mention its name, but they're local to Akron and a good place for a new band to Blossom. [wink, wink]

Said venue is an outdoor amphitheater. I always loved going there as a teenager. Bands, stars and a blanket. Nothing better.

And I come back years later and it's Corporate. Six dollar beers, and you're not even allowed to bring a blanket in to sit on - put your ass on the grass and deal with it. For free, you also get a half-hour walk back to your car to stash your blanket.

So I get home, and I'm furious. I go to their webpage and type up a well-written but angry letter and send it to The Powers That Be. The gist of the letter is that I will NEVER attend another concert there, even with a personal invitation from Jesus Christ. And what do you suppose happens?

....wait for it....

They put me on a mailing list informing me of exciting new shows coming up and ticket deals!

So everyone, by all means - hinder these marketing morons. Call their 800 numbers, tie up their salespeople...make it expensive and annoying because they're likely to not understand anything else.

Re:Spammers lie to net retailers

[am 2k]

At least here somebody has to pay for returning only if you repackage the mail.
Adding a brick is certainly repackaging.

Billing for time and services

[CaseStudy]

If one of these bills were disputed in court, the guy would lose. You can't charge people for sending you e-mail without some sort of prior contract.

Re:Billing for time and services

[ctid]

That's almost certainly true; the trick is to get the spammer to pay to find this out. Also, there is the case where the guy says any further email contact will incur costs blah blah blah. Then there is a prior "contract", although I'd guess that it wouldn't stand up in court.

Re:Billing for time and services

[Lion-O]

This would heavily depend on the country. For example; in Europe it usually costs money (phonecosts) to get the email. So these spammers are forcing you to make costs you don't want to make. Therefor I think this trial would work in most countries.

Re:Billing for time and services

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still not a contract, because there's no consideration; the "services" are a sham.

Re:Billing for time and services

[WillSeattle]

If one of these bills were disputed in court, the guy would lose. You can't charge people for sending you e-mail without some sort of prior contract.

Sorry, this is totally legitimate under Washington State law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court after numerous appeals.

So you can charge them for sending you spam if your state law allows it.

I am not sure of other states, but believe California and at least one other state have similar legislation.

-

Re:Billing for time and services

[CaseStudy]

Obviously you can do it if you're in a jurisdiction that has a statute specifically for that situation. But contract law won't cut it.

spam hunter

[Alien54]

The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us.

Actually we need a way to make money of the spammers. If there is a legal system to make money off spammmers, they will go away.

Solutions I've advocated in the past included spamm licenses, complete with cute orange ear tags for the spammer, and a culling program. This may even make a good kids games; "Spam Hunter! Can YOU catch the spammer?"

Slashdot effect.

[the_real_bayliss]

Hello, So I just read the latest news on slashdot about how evil spamming is, and read a couple of posts about how we should root out all spammers and torch their PC's (because frankly these people don't deserve to own PC's)....

This all well and good, but what about the slashdot effect. While I am sure that this had got to be covered somewhere on this site, does anyone ever think to warn host sites that they are about to be slashdotted? Do they have time to check their equipment and networks before thousands of people log onto their section of the web?

lets put it in context, its a punch of people that all simultaneously log onto the same host, all hoping to get a laugh. Sounds like an attack to me.

It seems to me that what some people forget is that crashing web-servers and networks is not something funny, but generally means that one of us gets woken up at 3am.

Surely some form of mirroring could be developed for links to articles?
Sorry, I'm new to all this so I had to ask.

Re:Slashdot effect.

[GigsVT]

It comes up all the time. There are drawbacks to all such ideas.

I think it's covered in one of the FAQs somewhere, go check them out.

Re:Slashdot effect.

[Cheeze]

i think the difference is that when you post something on a website, that is intended for people to view it. the website owner has, by either direct or indirect, the ability to post that article or not. when you get e-mail spam, it's unsolicited.

Stephen King, author, dead at 55

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 55

[j-beda]

... Stephen King was found dead...

I can sort of understand why someone would waste their time posting trolls about how various well known people are sexual deviants, or how Slashdot is tracking us all online, or maybe even the goatsex stuff, but I do not understand this interest in Stephen King.

Is there some sort of historical context that I am missing here? Has slashdot done (or not done) a lot of SK stories? Are people really upset about the ebook situation?

Does anyone ever fall for the SK death trolls (besides I suppose myself?)

if you wanna do something make them pay with $$$$$

[4444444]

Got http://www.goto.com do a search for bulk email click on each link because spammers pay several dollars for each click slashdoting thier links can cost them a fortune!!!

Fight SPAM ... here's how...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, If more people used this, perhaps we could see spam reduce a bit... jason ........ This free service will let you send a public spam report to network administrators. SpamCop routes your complaint accurately and works with network administrators and spammers to turn the tide. a href="http://spamcop.net/"

how to fight spam (link works now...)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

If more people used this, perhaps we could see spam reduce a bit...

jason

........

This free service will let you send a public spam report to network administrators. SpamCop routes your complaint accurately and works with network administrators and spammers to turn the tide.

http://www.spamcop.net

It's not the spammers making money...

[gfxguy]

It's the middlemen...

You know, the people who sell CDs and software with millions of email addresses, the ones promising the spammers that they'll make tons of money. The ones making stealth software, or actually setting up domains and accounts to spam for a whole ton of clients (who make little or nothing off of their spam investment).

It's like the get-rich-quick guys on TV selling a book - they get rich because losers buy their book, the losers make nothing.

re:Spammerz

[sg3000]

> He started swearing at me and telling me he was
> going to come and kill me and my family and all
> this other stuff and hung up on me :)

Uh, be careful, homeboy. I saw a news report where a lot of companies (like airlines) hire prison labor to act as telemarketers.

Troll Tuesday

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure to take advantage if you will be out of the office/work/your mom's basement the rest of the week. It is a great time to post AC or with a shiney new fake username since you can ride out the IP ban while you are away.

Re:Troll Tuesday

[the_real_bayliss]

You seem to post a lot... are you talking to me?

(I assume this because I have a 'shiny new fake username')

Well guess what...

My name really is Bayliss. HA!

farces.com

[Anonymous Coward]

gee, that URL really makes me believe this
story.

Why is this here? have you guys been farced?

foo

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just be, or is Slashdot mightily b0rk3d up today ?

so-called "companies"?

[Anonymous Coward]

these "so-called 'companies'"? yes, your message does drip with comtempt. Unfortunately, it also drips with the impotent rage of stupidity.

/.ed already

[Anonymous Coward]

/.ed already, boohoo :(

What we're up against...

[jpellino]

Shoveling against the tide:

CT has a law that says do it again afer being told no, and it's $500 per infraction. Fax spam is easy - they include their phone number most of the time. As a very small biz, we're not even close to being fooled by the handwritten notes on these things that make it look like someone ("-J.") in your own company faxed it over (erm, we have only one fax machine). We call them tell them the law and they sometimes sound like they're going to do something,

Except for one vacations promotions place who said "too bad" - when I mentioned the $500 per infraction, he said "We don't care. We make over a billion dollars a year, we can absorb the fines as the cost of doing business."

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose:

Then there's one guy up whose name/addr/phone shows up on some of those interent marketing secrets spams - the ones that say - you shouldn't spam people - but if you wanted to, this is where to get the lists - confused little critter. I told him once that he might want to get off the ad, as he's the only identifyable entitiy on it )read: lightning rod), and he claimed it's no-one's business, someone put his name on it and he likes it, he can do whatever he wants, it's a free country, and please don't threaten his life/house/family, etc... like so many of the dirtbag recipients of spam have done...made himself a cozy little victim's existence. Right.

Re:What we're up against...

[j-beda]

We don't care. We make over a billion dollars a year, we can absorb the fines as the cost of doing business.

Fill out Form 475 at the FCC, and eventaully they will hit them with a large enough fine to make them think twice. I think that willfully breaking federal laws can get you in bigger troubles than just the $500 fine.

strange

[archen]

You know, I find it sort of odd that all these law makers are so concerned about protecting our kids from bad stuff on the internet, but at the same time allow our kids to be subjected to tons of p0rn spam mail.

As an aside, I've just started to really get spam within the last year (out of 3 years). I only have one filter though, and that dumps any mail that doesn't have my address in the To: field. When I looked at the mail I noticed that my address wasn't in the CC either. I have a domain so I assume that the mail is somehow getting to me because I am the default mail address. This actually catches about 90% of my spam. Anyone know what this is all about?

Re:strange

[j-beda]

This is the "bcc:" or "blind carbon copy" field. Recipients listed in the bcc field are not listed in any of the headers that anyone else (to and cc reciepients) get sent. It is pretty useful if you are sending to a large list of people and do not want everyone to be forced to page through screens of recipients. It also provides some privacy features in that all of your recipients do not get everyone else's email address - great for things like "STD test results! Very important!" that you might not want everyone to know to whom else you are sending the message.

The bcc field is also often used by spammers who do not go through the trouble of individually addressing each email message. If you combine a filter on your address not being in the "to" or the "cc" fields along with the sender not being someone you know, it probably works pretty well as a spam trap.

Note that many mailing lists might use similar features.

This REALLY gets the telemarketers . . .

[div_2n]

When they start into their script, yell STOP until they stop. Then say something like this, "This call my be recorded for contractual purposes. I must politely inform you that I perform most of my work on the phone and I charge an hourly rate of US$100 per hour with a 3 hour minimum for any and all non-personal calls. All calls past 6PM (insert your timezone) are considered overtime and will be charged an additional US$50 per hour. To agree to these terms, please do so by saying yes now . . ."

Take that and run with it. Buy a cheap recorder and actually record it. If they have someone stupid enough to say yes, then you just scored 300 maybe 450 dollars!

Would this be acceptable?

[algorithm_x]

What if we forwarded all of the spam we recieve, to all of the other spammers? My conscience tells me that it would use bandwith and I would actualy be spamming. Spammers dont have consciencees do they? This sure would be a lot of fun.

/.ed

[TMacPhail]

From what I have read, this sounds quite amusing. Unfortunately it has been /.ed. Anyone have any links to a mirror of some sort?

Anti-Spam Idea

[Xesdeeni]

I can't figure out who to open a discussion with about this, but I have this simple idea that should at least eliminate the anonymous/spoofed spam, which is all I get.

You simply modify the mail servers to query the sending server whether a received mail actually came from that server. The query is a key based on the contents of the message and a key included with the message, which is itself based on the same contents and a private key of the sending server. If the sending server has been upgraded with this feature, it can validate, or not, the message. If it's not validated, the message is bounced. For backwards compatibility, if the sending server hasn't been upgraded, the message always goes through. But as more servers are upgraded, fewer and fewer servers will be able to be used as scapegoats for spoofed spam, and pressure will mount to upgrade these servers as well.

Eventually, the only spam you will get will be from a valid return address, which can be handled more effectively in more conventional ways. In fact, adding manual bouncing at this stage might be helpful as well, since now it really will bounce back to the sender.

I realize I've glossed over some details here, and someone much more experienced in mail servers will have to massage this approach to make it practical, but I think the germ of a very simple but effective idea is here.

Xesdeeni

Re:Anti-Spam Idea

[Legion303]

That would be great--assuming you can get people to upgrade their mail servers. Sendmail 4.x.x is still in use today in some parts of the world.

-Legion

Re:Anti-Spam Idea

[Xesdeeni]

That's the beauty of it. If they don't upgrade, they become one of the ever-decreasing number of servers that can be spoofed. They would be increasingly swamped with bounced mail, e-mail to abuse@, or even black-listed completely. It's kind of net peer pressure.

Xesdeeni

Nietzche?

[shpoffo]

didn't Nietzche say somethigna bout "He who fights with spammers might take care lest he thereby become a spammer. And if you gaze for long into an net, the net gazes also into you."

-shpoffo

One possible Approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comments about putting spammers' e-mail addresses is brilliant. I think it should be vigoriously pursued. Also, I was thinking about generating spam tar-pit e-mail addresses. The e-mail address would point to a SMTP server that would purposely accept a few bytes every minute but nothing more. This would eat up spammers resources (or at least the resources of open mail relays they abuse).

Pretending to be serious

[digitalsushi]

Anyone ever pretend they really want the service and write back? I have written back to spams about 3 or 4 times, pretending to be seriously interested, asking for more information with contact information (why not, they're already spamming me 15 times a day)... none ever got back to me.

Most sinister method EVER

[digitalsushi]

get these emails, "someone you know has a secret crush on you! if you can guess who it is, then it was meant to be and we will email you their address!"

so you spend all day thinking up emails and submitting them, praying that you can guess who it is (cause you're an angst ridden slashdotting teenager lonely and looking for love :) but DOH, it clicks only too late and you thank God none of your friends are going to find out that it was REALLY YOU who submitted verified, working email addresses to this giant spam harvester!

Ah, if only I were more sinister myself, I would have seen the trap before I fell :-D

anyone got a more evil sneaky method to get good email addresses? no, of course you dont. this is the worst one ever.

Re:SpamCop, and Nagging Admins with complaint Emai

[Fastolfe]

The single thing that had the most effect on the amount of spam I receive is blocking client connections to my mail server from IP addresses that either do not have, or have broken reverse DNS. Since the bulk of mail servers that are misconfigured with respects to their relay settings are also broken with respects to their DNS, this has very neatly curbed 95% of the spam I receive. The rest of the spam comes from domains with correctly configured DNS, which usually means they have a manned and relatively clueful abuse@ contact that will take care of the rest.

Though in the couple of months I've done this, I occasionally review my mail logs to see what's being rejected, and I've found 2 pieces of legitimate correspondence that were rejected. One of them finally got back to me with a "oops, my bad" message while the other one was a victim of a clueless ISP that I had to allow through by hand. Still, it's worth it.

I used to use MAPS, but now that they've changed their policies, they require me to mail in two original copies of some hefty contracts just for their free personal-use service, so I haven't gotten around to doing that yet. I've done some tests though, and the MAPS RSS would have nuked most (if not all) of the spam that's blocked by my refusal to traffic with hosts that have broken reverse DNS.

root@localhost anti-spam measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I'm forced to give an e-mail address over the web I always type in root@localhost

Even if only one spammer gets there own spam, I think it is worth it.

(Yeah I know, but some sysadmins _are_ that stupid)

Re:root@localhost anti-spam measure

[Maserati]

I've been known to use "abuse@" and cut myself out of the loop completely, while getting the spammer to report him/herself to the bofh dept. of a major ISP.

Re:Registrars and Spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

This particular MX happens to be a real nuisance for the spammers, since all it does is listen on port 25 , connect back to port 25 on the calling system, and pass bytes back and forth. When they're an open relay (most of the time), the resulting loop storm sucks down tons of disk space in logs on their end.

I love it :-)

Trouble is for the spam host in question I'd tie up bandwith around two thirds of a diameter of the earth... yeow... I need to convince them to deliver the mail to their own subnet somehow - maybe the tarpit could be in their domain, that could be amusing.

I am worried about the Registrar thing tho, it's an abuse... how to prove it internationally could be a trick though. (it's not as though they're one of those evil port scanners or script kiddies or something ;-)

But this still ties up bandwidth. Try this instead

[SomethingOrOther]

That will still tie up a shitload of bandwidth. Not good.

The best idea I have seen is finding a few spammers real e-mail addresses. (Go to the site they are spamming for, look at the HTML and you will find an address in one of the forms. Usually billing@... sales@... etc. Dont forget root@...)

Simply put these e-mail addresses in your USENET signature with a note saying "please send spam here"
Spam bots will pick up these addresses and spam the crap out of the billing addresses. I've noticed quite a few people doing this on the USENET groups I read.

Earthlink and SPAM

[maX_]

Recently EarthMindSpringLink 'borged' my ISP, assimulating me into the collective. I was able to keep my old email address, and was given a mindspring address.
I never gave that address out, I never even use that address. Since Nov3 (last day I cleaned out the spam) I have recieved 125 SPAMS. most of which do not have my email address in the header. Spam to my original Email address have also quadrupled since the conversion.
My private mail server, with which I have subscribed to numerous Yahoo Mail lists has not seen more than 10 junk emails in the past 6 months. These spammers need to be stopped!

Re:Earthlink and SPAM

[EdlinUser]

Second that emotion.
My ISP was also borged by Earthlink.(ipa.net).
Spam went up 4X, and support declined.

SPAM THE WHORE

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, the spammers's personal EMail address is available.

Hypothetically, one could let Jim know just how much we despise he and his ilk. One also wonders if the @home mail server could possibly handle a Slashdotting.

Of course, we're all far too couth to do such a thing to him.

easy to prove.

[www.sorehands.com]

You set up specific email addresses for the spam bots to grab.

If they are not available anywhere else, then their grabbing them is a copyright violation.

Re:easy to prove.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. An email address by itself, just like a street address or a phone number, is a bare fact. It does not contain any creative element, and therefore is not protected by copyright law.

It might be protectable under some form of database license (or the evil database anti-copying laws in Europe), but copyright isn't going to help you.

Re:easy to prove.

[www.sorehands.com]

I was not clear.

You put the unique email address on a page that the bot is not authorized to grab. The use of the email address is evidence that the page was accessed, as it is the only place that the address is listed.

Re:easy to prove.

[ethereal]

Unless they say that they were only iterating through the email address namespace, rather than scanning your particular web page. I'm not sure who the burden of proof would be on in that case.

Re:easy to prove.

[hearingaid]

If they are not available anywhere else, then their grabbing them is a copyright violation.

Unwittingly, you've put your finger on the nub of the problem.

You have to prove a negative. This is difficult; it can be done, at least to the level a court of law needs, but it's still not all that easy.

An anecdote

[Jaycatt]

I actually have a good anecdote about being careful to check who's calling before asking to be taken off their call list.

I once got a call from Sears asking for me with my full name (which no one I know uses). They started this little speal, and I broke in with "Oh, before you go on, could you take me off your call list?". The guy came back with "Actually, we're calling to let you know about a past due notice on your Sears card. If you will make arrangements to pay it off we'll *gladly* take you off our call list." He finished this sentence sounding more than a bit smug. I couldn't blame him though, and I sheepishly agreed and hung up the phone. I was even embarrassed enough that I went in the very next day in person to pay it off.

Normally I pay all bills on time, but the invoice for this had been lost in the mail and so I hadn't paid it by the due date. These days, I wait until I'm *positive* that it's really a telemarketing call. Some of those are actually legit!

Re:make them pay with $$$$$

[moogla]

Overture.com search for bulk email vendors

Then start clicking on links. You can see how much they have to pay next to each link. Sucks to be them!

speaking of spam-swap...

[dR.fuZZo]

I've been wondering... wouldn't it be possible to set something up where you accumulate a database of email addresses from spam, and then have a program automatically send email to those addresses that appear to be from someone interested in their service/cash prize/whatever, and have the email forged so that it looks like it's coming from one of the addresses of the other spammers?

So, for example, spammer A gets a message that's appears to be from spammer B's email address. Spammer A now wastes time trying to sell crap to spammer B, while B has his email box filled up with email from spammer A. The end effect would be that both of them waste their time dealing with each other, and since they waste more time, it makes spam less valuable a tool.

And, uhm, if anyone from the federal gov't asks, this was a joke, too.

Re:speaking of spam-swap...

[rew]

So, for example, spammer A gets a message that's appears to be from spammer B's email address.

Someone sent a spam advertizing a sex site. Some 30000 adressees got the version that seemed to come from me. I got the bounces.

So howmany people are going to fall for "that must be the spammers real Email address"? Too many.

Roger.

Another anti-spam tactic

[Eusebo]

I suppose this is somewhat because I have nothing better to do at work...

I reply to the sending address with a spoofed email from the mailer daemon account (daemon@somedomain.com) and include a legitimate looking "undeliverable" message in the body. Most spammers are too dumb to realize that the message is spoofed and they'll remove you from their list to avoid getting tons of bounced messages when they unleash their next wave of "marketing"

Unfortunately this doesn't work well for the type of messages that contain nothing more than a bogus email address and a website link, but I like using it as a first attempt none the less...

hotmail tells me it's not from their network

[Anonymous Coward]

I have forwarded a number of spam e-mails to abuse@hotmail.com only to get replys that say the address was forged and not really from a hotmail account. I would think that hotmail would want to go after forged e-mail because it makes them look even worse and drags their name down, but I guess not.

Someone please break....

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone wants to hack 66.163.40.11 preferably to delete any email lists, I cannot think of a more worthy cause. They got a listing of university accounts and send out the same 3-4 stupid messages every day. Their remove URL gives a 403 forbidden and even the arin domain contact email bounces. I'm sick of adding a filter for all this junk. It's an IIS/4.0 box with PC-Anywhere, Serv U 2.5 on so I wouldn't think it would be that hard.

Reminds me of....

[optize]

... That one guy that sued that spammer, and won! Woohoo

Step #3 in Jam the Spammers Game

[scoove]

I neglected to mention Step #3 that is particularly helpful inducing noise into the email spam channels:

Step 3. Develop noise email identities, particularly focusing on notably abusive spam domains. My favorite here is someuser@chinanet.cn.net (make up your own value for someuser - common names like admin, hostmaster, root, etc. are good to try) - per my experience with Spamcop assessments, Chinanet is about the most frequent spam abuser (and they almost always lie about their email origin identity). These guys literally provide safe harbor to spam terrorists.

Sure, it's fun to route chinanet IP's to a null interface (and probably wise too - countless rogue script-laden emails that fire up a browser and open you up to numerous issues come from chinanet solicitions).

Obviously, chinanet likes spam - so be sure to put them down to receive some!

*scoove*

Re:Step #3 in Jam the Spammers Game

[Thing 1]

Another way to fight them is to cost them money. This was discussed previously here on Slashdot (a few months ago), and as a result I fixed up a Perl script to make it easier.

Just go here and click "Kill GoTo Spammers!" to do damage.

Without filling in the edit box, it'll randomly choose 10-20 spammers to target. It loads the http://www.goto.com search page for "bulk+email" and then clicks on the top N links. Each click costs a certain amount of money (currently, the top link is worth $1.25). (I just ran it for 10 spammers, and did $9.59 worth of damage.)

Note that the script is written such that it can be run from the command-line or through a CGI. If you want source, Lenny has graciously provided a page for my work.

Enjoy!

Re:SpamCop, and Nagging Admins with complaint Emai

[Anonymous Coward]

By spamming the ISP with unnecessary duplicate complaints, you are helping the spammer by knowingly wasting the time of the admin whose help you pretend to seek. People who flood admins with unnecessary complaints probably are just spammers on holiday.

You WHAT?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So let me get this straight. You want to invite the legislature to bad bots harvesting information off the web, and certainly to ban any web site from copying any information at all from your own (even an e-mail address). Is that about right?

Oh, dear. You just took Google off-line. (Actually, the legality of Google's cache must be slightly questionable anyway, on IP grounds. But do you really want their bots to stop indexing web pages?)

Re:You WHAT?!

[hearingaid]

Google has an implied license claim that's pretty good, IMO.

Search engines have been indexing the web for quite some time, and there's a file called robots.txt that they use. Perhaps you've heard of it. Search engine spiders that read it use it to decide what they're allowed to index.

If I were a Google lawyer (and I'm not :) I'd use the existence of a robots.txt file on a website as proof of an actual license to index. I'd also suggest that given the fact that robots.txt files are common and well-documented, when a person puts up a website and does not include a robots.txt file, that person is giving an implied license to index the web content.

Spambots, however, ignore robots.txt files.

Re:You WHAT?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Google has an implied license claim that's pretty good, IMO.

For indexing purposes, I hope they do. Most copyright laws seem to allow for "fair use", and I'd hope things like reasonable criticism or citation would constitute fair use.

For caching a whole web site, though, they're taking the content and essentially presenting it as part of their own system. I suspect they're on much less solid territory there; I have content on the web, and haven't given my permission for them to copy it en masse. In fact, my web pages all state explicitly that the material may not be copied without my prior permission. Personally, at this moment, I don't object if they want to cache it. But if I took the site down, in order to publish the articles for profit, for example, then I might have a different opinion at that time.

If I were a Google lawyer (and I'm not :) I'd use the existence of a robots.txt file on a website as proof of an actual license to index. I'd also suggest that given the fact that robots.txt files are common and well-documented, when a person puts up a website and does not include a robots.txt file, that person is giving an implied license to index the web content.

If I were a lawyer fighting Google in the courts (and I'm not :-)) then I might try to refute that argument on the basis that most of the net-dwelling public is not aware of robots.txt and its uses. In particular, it's possible to create and e-publish a web site via many ISPs without any knowledge of that file being made available to you.

Personally, my feeling is that if you want to use a tool like the Internet, it's your responsibility to at least learn the basics first. I'm a great believer in Netiquette, and it annoys me when newbies come along, don't understand why things have previously been done a certain way, and expect the whole world suddenly to revolve around them because they haven't done their homework. But I can see a reasonable argument the other way, too, in the indexing case. (I don't think any argument about robots.txt can possibly justify copying my work wholesale without my permission, when my site explicitly forbids this.)

Re:You WHAT?!

[hearingaid]

For caching a whole web site, though, they're taking the content and essentially presenting it as part of their own system. I suspect they're on much less solid territory there; I have content on the web, and haven't given my permission for them to copy it en masse. In fact, my web pages all state explicitly that the material may not be copied without my prior permission. Personally, at this moment, I don't object if they want to cache it. But if I took the site down, in order to publish the articles for profit, for example, then I might have a different opinion at that time.

Googlebot supports metatags that allow you to prevent caching. For more information, read this.

Also, they don't cache pages that have gone down since the last crawl. This isn't like the Usenet archive.

You're right, though, in that they'd have a fight on their hands in court. They've got a much stronger position legally though than the spam harvester bots, because they've made a good-faith effort. I can't see them getting hit with much of anything but an injunction, and maybe not even that; whereas if I was a prosecuting attorney, I'd want to go after the people behind eBay harvester bots with criminal remedies.

Re:You WHAT?!

[www.sorehands.com]

That is why I put up a robots.txt file that specifically disallows pages with the "trap" addresses on it.

Of course, I don't want to stop the googles and the like. I want to stop spammers. It is a very thin blade one must use.

Publishing a Cell Phone Number

[hillct]

Theoretically, of you publish your cell phone number and a telemarketer calls it (since it costs you money to recieve calls) you can invoice them $500 - $1500 per call under the Telecommunications Act of 1991

--CTH

Re:Publishing a Cell Phone Number

[CaptainZapp]

Not in Europe. Thankfully nobody gets billed for receiving calls here (some pre-payed card operators might, but it's not the rule).

Minors

[fishebulb]

I have actually considered this when i was a minor. What happens when someone sends a minor explicit material, there was that stupid CDA law a few years ago. But this would fall into the line of actively giving explicit material to minors rather than minors seeking the material. If i buy a playboy for a minor it would be "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" why couldnt spam (sexual related) to minors be treated the same way. Could you imagine if someone outside of a middle/high school was giving out thousands of copies xxx porno mag. There would be a big problem for that individual. I think this could be an interesting route.

Top 49 Ways To Have Fun With Telemarketers

[hillct]

Why bother telling them off when you could do any one of the following:

Top 49 Ways To Have Fun With Telemarketers

--CTH

PS: this link to a site that I run (although completely topical) is offered in the spirit of shameless self promotion :-)

How not to get spam

[soft_guy]

The email client that comes with MacOS X has a really cool feature. It is called "Bounce to Sender". When I get spam, I bounce it back to the sender. To the spammer, it looks like my email address is not a valid address - and they remove me from their list. Not because I've asked them to remove me and they are nice guys, but because it looks like an invalid address. I haven't seen this feature on other email clients, but obviously clients with this feature could be written for any and all platforms. It really does work. I've had this email address for years and I don't do anything else to limit the amount of spam I get. I get a *really* small amount of spam compared to my work email that uses Outlook (where I can't just bounce the email, so I just delete the spam.) I get probably 10 spams/day at work (after not answering any spam and working there 2 years) and maybe 1 every 2 weeks on my mac.com email (where I use bounce - I've had the account about 3 years.)

Having your own domain helps -

[Anonymous Coward]

I use sitename@junkmail.mydomain.com whenever I need to give out an email address to a particular site. This enables me to track where a particular spammer got the address from. Since I don't get anything expect junk mail on those emails, it's a trivial matter to kill the sitename address, and start firewalling the IPs of anyone trying to send mail to a killed address.

Actually they don't have that right

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone parked next to me at a bar and started telling me about the Horse he Farked the other day, 3 things would happen, #1 In any bar I've ever been in and he was serious he'd get whooped on,#2 I'd politely tell him to can it then I'd call the cops and complain about his lewd and lacivious acts, which is a crime in NEARLY every jurisdiction in the land. Beastilality is a crime almost everywhere as well so thats not a good analogy.

And killing open source while you're at it?

[devphil]

If you ... don't publish your e-mail address,

then I can't collaborate, contribute, or even ask a freaking question in public.

I will not be chased off of developer email lists just because some poodlefucker harvests the addresses of the list traffic.

(And yes, I do support the death penalty for spammers. They cause far more loss in time and revenue than their lives could possible be worth. Yes, I really am that cold. *grin*)

Re:And killing open source while you're at it?

[Tom7]

Oh, gimme a break...
Are we not communicating in public now?

Spam is NOT killing open source. If you like, develop a spam-proof email system (digital signatures). That will be much less dangerous to open source than government regulation of the internet.

It's all well and good to make fun, but this kind of attitude is really dangerous! I am very wary of any sentiment like "We should make laws against X kinds of people..."
(X = KKK members? Communists? Muslims?)

Re:And killing open source while you're at it?

[dvdeug]

It's all well and good to make fun, but this kind of attitude is really dangerous! I am very wary of any sentiment like "We should make laws against X kinds of people..."
(X = KKK members? Communists? Muslims?)

Oh, come on! Do you really object to us making laws against X kinds of people (X = Rapists? Murders? Thieves?)? No one has even mentioned suing spammers for what they believe, only for their actions. It's akin to littering - no one wants to see, and when there's dozens of idiots who do it, it gets to be a real problem.

Re:And killing open source while you're at it?

[devphil]

Spam is NOT killing open source.

That wasn't my point. Let me try again.

This idea of "simply don't reveal your address" would kill the spirit of open collaboration. A user goes to report a bug or ask a question, and then changes his mind because "then the spammers would get me... maybe I can just live with the bug instead." The cure would be worse than the disease.

Some OSS lists have already gone down that route. The KDE lists are blocked from open posting, and subscribing takes way too many hoops to jump through. It's a shame.

My aplogies for not making my position clearer in my previous posting.

(As for the laws-against-certain-people... that only holds as long as they meant the definitions of "people." I have nothing against Communists, and some of my best friends are Muslims, and unfortunately we have to allow the KKK freakos their opinions, but spammers add nothing to the quality of life anywhere on the planet, and do a lot to detract from it. They are nothing but a plague.)

Re:And killing open source while you're at it?

[devphil]

My aplogies for not making my position clearer in my previous posting.

My apologies for not doing a cursory spell check in my previous posting. (Those responsible for the previous apology have been sacked.)

Terrorist act? Sure, why not?

[dschuetz]

If you could fool the goverment into thinking that spam is terrorism, I bet they would definitly do something about it;)

[Disclaimer, don't even try to take that seriously]

Why not?

According to the latest anti-terrorism acts, if I recall correctly, any "attack" on one or more computer systems resulting in an aggregate cost of more than $5000 qualifies as a Terrorist Attack on the computer systems in question.

So, if a SPAM sent to your ISP clogs up the mail server, and it takes more than $X to clean it up (in admin costs and, possibly, refunds to annoyed customers), or if this happens to your company's main email gateway, or if everyone in your organization gets it and it has a virus in it, or each email includes remotely-hosted HTTP images that pushes your burstable line into a higher bracket, then, well:

* Record everything you can about the email, who sent it, when, contents, how it got there, what it did, and most importantly, what it cost to clean up
* Publish this on some central spam-cop site
* when enough other victims have come together with similar experiences, that the total cost exceeds $5000, then get a good lawyer, demand a grand jury be empaneled to consider indictment of the perpetrator on terrorist computer attack charges, and see what happens next

Repeat as necessary.

Hey, worst case the act is thrown out as unconstitutional. Best case, you put a bunch of SPAMers in jail for life (for which you could argue, as the plaintiffs, for a reduced sentence and large fine).

But I'd argue that this is exactly what the act was supposed to do -- prevent against any computer-borne attack that causes $5000 or more in actual damage to one or more corporations. Right? Just because the DDOS came in the form of Email doesn't make the law less applicable than if it were an email virus, or a script-kiddie DDOS, right?

Re:Terrorist act? Sure, why not?

[forgoil]

Why not?

Because I think terrorism should be reserved for what it is. I rather get spam than anthrax. I rather have it that the us goverment battle real terrorist and battle the narcoticts distributers with the same means. The US biggest problem is not really terrorists, as they haven't been able to do even close to the same damage as the gangs and the narcotics.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting rid of spam, heck, I am sick and tired of all the commercials in society, since 99% of them have products and don't give a damn about.

Are spammers getting smarter?

[coljac]

I used to vigorously hunt down every spammer who targeted me. Eventually it got too difficult and I had to be more selective - cheap developers and bible software get my goat. (The porn industry is just too big and scary for me.) But recently, I find I rarely have any luck finding someone to complain to. In the old days - i.e. 6 months ago - I could almost always take a glance at the headers and identify an ISP with little more than nslookup. Now I'm finding that I can't see a dialup address in the headers, and that the only intermediate mail servers are in asia. Somehow I doubt that forwarding the span to abuse@fdjjk.cn will yield any results. Has anyone else had the same problem?

Expose them... literally!

[tresstatus]

I ran a story on my site back in July about this. Basically a guy got pissed about some spam and hacked into a spammer's computer. He posted some newd pics. Check out the article here.

Mr. Hobuss' phone number is...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 503-661-2477.

spam on AOL

[ccf]

I know it's too late for this comment to get noticed, but just thought I'd share a spam experience from AOL. I got myself an AOL screen name, oh probably over a year ago, but I have NEVER used it for mail of any kind, nor told anyone of its existence. For a good while I never received any mail at the address, spam or otherwise. Then, about four months or so ago, I received a message from AOL support with some information about my account. From then on, the spam started. So now while I get probably less spam than your average hotmail account, I still get a reasonably healthy supply for an address I never used and have never exposed on any web site or mailing list, about 10 or 20 messages a week.

So I can only conclude that AOL is exposing its own customers to spam simply by sending them account notices. Nice.

Dude, you are seriously fucked up!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one fucked up individual. The other poster just said that he'd favor an anti-spam law and that the anti-fax law is working out fine. How the hell do you get off calling him a tyrant, insulting his character, and deciding what laws he favors or opposes? You dragged in abortion, gun control, Waco, and every other lunatic fringe religious-conservative-paranoid-government's-out- to-get-me rant that you could. You owe him an apology and I don't blame him for being pissed.

That's totally illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/script.html:

Every time you get a call you consider junk, just ask the questions in this script. If they answer no, you may be able to sue them. You can print copies of it to keep by every phone at home. If everyone follows it, the junk calls will slowly but surely drop off.

``Are you calling to sell something?'' (or ``is this a telemarketing call?'')
``Could you tell me your full name please?'' $
``And a phone number, area code first?'' $
``What's the name of the organization you're calling for?'' $
``Does that organization keep a list of numbers it's been asked not to call?'' $
``I would like my number(s) put on that list. Can you take care of that now?'' $
``And does the company you work for also make telemarketing calls for any other organizations?'' (If they answer no, skip the next question.)
(If yes) ``Can you make sure your company won't call me for any other organization?'' $

You may need to ask to speak with a supervisor if they sound lost. When you're ready to let them off, you might close with ``Is it clear that I never want telemarketing calls from anyone?'' and just say goodbye. If you feel like making them pay, keep going:

``Will your company keep my number on its do-not-call list for at least ten years?'' $
``And does your company have a written policy that says that on paper?'' $
``Can you send me a copy of it?'' $
``What's your supervisor's first and last name?''
``What's your employer's business name, address and main telephone number?''
``Are you calling for a tax-exempt nonprofit organization?''
``Is this call based on a previously established business relationship?''
Before hanging up, check you have all their answers written down, then say goodbye. Add the date and time to your record. (Is it between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.? $)
Disclaimer: nothing here should be taken as legal advice. If they answer no to any question ending in ``$'' you may be able to sue them for $500-$1500 under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. But if the answer to either of the last two questions is yes, then the Act doesn't consider the call to be a solicitation, so it's not covered by many of its regulations. Also excluded are calls to business numbers. For more details, see our pages on federal laws and on how to reduce telemarketing calls and junk mail. JUNKBUSTERS DECLARE makes it easy to tell companies not sell your phone number to telemarketers, and to request the Direct Marketing Association's Telephone Preference Service.

why send pizza?

[ianxm]

what's wrong with good old dog shit? [http://www.dogdoo.com]

"Sorry if you've received this other spammer's product in error. Reply to be removed from our Spam-Swap(TM) List."

".. and you will be removed from our list in just five to six weeks!"

hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet being slashdoted costs him more money than spammers ever will...

Fun with fake e-mail names

[Anonymous Coward]

For entertainment value only (don't do this)...

`rm -rf /`@allgone.com

`umount -a`@whereismyfs.com

This probably won't do anything to the spammer's machine, but it has a certain scare factor, as well as the obvious "this is a bad address and you now have to waste time getting rid of it" message.

DVD Spammers http://66.163.40.9/DVD/dvd17/

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys have been spamming me for weeks
now and no onw does anything about it.. can
any ./ help with stopping them ??

http://66.163.40.9/DVD/dvd17/

i have been doing this for a while now...

[Prion86]

i was sitting around bullshitting with some buddies of mine explaining how i got the idea of sending junkmail from one person back to another (credit card offers etc) in their postage paid envelopes. i was also telling them how i would occasionally do the same thing with spam addresses. i would collect a small list of addresses and put them in anywhere anyone was asking for my email address. i decided after a while that i would like to somehow force these people to either stop emailing me or pay me for each email. so, i talked to a couple lew-type buddies of mine and formed out a carefully worded contract of sorts that basicaly said the sender of the spam, by sending another email, agreed to pay me $100 (or however much). the best part is that that it is a 100% legaly binding contract (as far as the law people i know have told me). i have yet to get any money, but you better believe the spam stops in its tracks. i just wish there was a way to track the senders better because of the fact that i seem to get the same 'free teen nude xxx midget peeing animal j-lo bedroom cam' spam from different IPs and email addresses. oh well...

Re:I hope not... (Moderators must like spam)

[walt-sjc]

Yes, spam IS that bad. Hang on to your email address for a few years and see what happens. I've had the same email address for 7 years and my spam filters catch over 100 PER DAY for that one account alone.

The problem is that I host MANY accounts off my IDSL line (144K / sec - fastest I could get in Silicon Valley due to the pathetic phone company.) Adding up all the spam I on all the email accounts I host I count almost 20000 spams per day which is a Very significant chunk of my bandwidth as not only does it cost bandwidth to get it, it costs bandwidth to pass it on to my POP account users.

My problem is nothing compared to Hotmail / AOL who get MILLIONS of spams per day. Spam costs the industry hundreds of millions of dollars every year which comes directly from us in higher fees as ISP's are burdened with bandwidth / disk space / labor costs.

The "just hit delete" morons can't see beyond their own petty little email account.
For the few bad laws out there, there are tons of good ones such as the junk fax laws, laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Paranoia will do no good at all. Giving good input to your elected officials Will.

By the way, notice how all the paranoid /clueless posts against passing anti-spam laws are moderated way up? What's up with that? Are the moderators spammers? Do they like getting 50 copies of the "GET 69 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES" spam email?

There are other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget New Zeland. They use "$" and cheques too, just like that big country north of the USA that's always sending cold fronts down our way. :-)

Re:This method is even MORE evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a method that is much worse. You use one of the "execute arbitrary code" outlook (lookout?) holes to plant a trojan. This trojan will hook into outlook and log any email addresses it sees, it will then periodically send those addresses, along with any in your MSIE cache files and your addressbook, to a certain address. So spammers could get lots of vaild emails simply by sending an email containing a trojan that automatically executes when the email is viewed. A variation of this could be used against an email server, to log and transmit all email addresses the server sees. All it takes is a server or email client that has an exploit that allows arbitrary code to be executed.

Oh crap!

[mmmmbeer]

Every time I try to say "Art & Farces" it comes out "Fartin' Arses"!

Kill 'em All!!!

[letchhausen]

Unless one of them wants to hire me because I really need a job......

Spamming for Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

A courageous person could fight spam with spam. Here's how:

1: Convince yourself that the ends justify the means.

2: Start a company you won't mind seeing sued into oblivion.

3: Build a website. Include the full details of this plan somewhere in your privacy policy. Promise to publish every bit of customer information you can get.

3: Creatively spam a few million people. Offer X bajillion email addresses for $Y. Include a warning that you reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. Refer to the privacy policy on your website.

4: Accept payment by check only.

5: Upon receipt of payment, refuse to do business with customer on the grounds that the customer is a sleazy proto-spammer. Refer the customer to your privacy policy.

6: Publish all customer info anywhere you can (including gnutella).

7: If anyone sues, publish the lawyers' names and addresses too.

Or just start an email hoax about someone who actually did this.

put IT in a different can

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll never try to feed you spam at ScaredCity. In fact, we NEVER collect email addresses (or any other personal inf.), & don't care what yours is.

In fact, we're guessing that those little folks that get duped into spamming their wares, have no clue as to how annoying it is. We do note that ALL the ?big guise? (yahoo, aol, m$, verysign/nsi, etc... etc), spam EVERYBODY constantly. We particularly love the variety that is 1/4 meg or more (see also: billy gates), & trIEs to spew cookIEs onto your pc. fud on, everything's GNU now.

Site is still slashdotted

[Pathetic Coward]

This story isn't even on the active page anymore, and www.farces.com is still unavailable ...

Re:Anti-spam is fine, get a filter, and quit bitch

[banuaba]

What in the name of all that is holy is a Thaler?

Important correction

[21mhz]

After

head -n 100

there should be

cat >/dev/null

, or any processed message longer than 100 lines will cause procmail to croak and pass the message through. However, the destination address will be sent the report anyway.

Re:Stupid Spam Terrorists and RadioShack

[Anonymous Coward]

When I buy something at Radio Shack and they ask me for my phone number, I give them their own number, and if they catch on (they usually don't) I give them their corporate headquarters phone number. Same goes for Sports Authority.

They don't make money from US...

[DoctorNathaniel]

Spammers make money, or hope to make money, not from actual sales resulting from spam, but from the EXPECTATION of sales resulting from spam.

Unfortunately, the capitalist society we live it is not ideal in that it is not an _informed_ society. The 'enlightened' part of 'enlightened self-interest' is not always in force.

"Duh... I bet I could make lots of sales if I spam! 100000 email addresses.. at least 1% will have to buy."

(This is probably due to people being unable to comprehend fractions smaller than 1%.)

---N