Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuits Against Spammers
apc writes "Pretty good overview of the state of the law
regarding spammers, and some stories about people who have sued them and won. Nice to see the topic getting mainstream attention."
It talks about several different states and several different people who
have won cases. I still think its fairly hopeless, but I also believe forging
SMTP headers should be legally punishable by castration.
Instead of encouraging litigation, why don't we develop (easy) and attempt to gain acceptance (harder) of an authenticated e-mail format?
I would much rather see technical (or social) solutions to the spam problem... laws have a funny way of not going in our favor, don't they?
Reminds me of that cool site where U can set the SMTP headers and send anonymous mail to freak ppl out, mischiefmail.com methinks..
And I assuming the removed body parts would be affixed to the male spammers female coworkers?
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
Personally, I'd prefer no laws -- even for spammers.
"but I also believe forging SMTP headers should be legally punishable by castration"
I also believe publishing laugable stories about an "XBox emulator" without actually testing it first should be punishable by castration.
Let's hope some people see this as a business opportunity, and start a business or organization to sue on behalf of all of us who don't bother now, and collect a percentage. So that more of us can use our lawful right to make the spammers pay for their nuisance.
We could donate proceedings of successful spam litigation to open source projects or to the EFF.
What we need is national legislation against spam. There are too many state laws that legitimize spam in one way or another. This gives every spammer a one time get out of jail free card, and does nothing for spam problem in general. New spammers pop up all the time - it doesn't make sense to 'opt out' of every new spam list you get onto.
The article makes a good point about laws that require spam to be labeled. This isn't a solution, and there are also conflicting requirements between state laws. One law requires "ADV: ADLT" on the subject header, another law requires "ADULT ADVERTISEMENT". This is a perfect example of laws being too specific - legislation has no business dictating changes to the SMTP protocol. This isn't useful either: shouldn't spam laws apply to more than SMTP? Say, ICQ spam? Internal AOL spam?
This is why we need a national spam law. No conflicts, no SMTP requirements, no opt-out. Make spam illegal, period. Spam is harassment, theft of service, and usually fraudulent. It costs ISPs millions of dollars that are passed on to YOU. Companies lose productivity because of workers receiving spam.
If you think this is any different from junk fax laws, you're kidding yourself. Spam and junk faxes both hurt the recipient. Spam is not free speech. Spam is not a constitutional right. Banning spam IS the right answer.
...ouch! I mean, who, having come across RFC 821, hasn't thought to themselves "woo ... spoofable ... cool", and tried it out?
I foresee the end of silicon valley, within a generation, at a tender age, if such legislation were passed.
...how about caning?
yes, we have no bananas
Tired of not making enough MONEY ? HOW ABOUT $3000 PER WEEK OR MORE !
No, this is not a joke, YOU TOO CAN QUIT YOUR JOB AND MAKE THE MONEY YOU DESERVE !
HOW ?
Very recently, I have discovered that anybody on the internet receives "SPAM" emails, and that it is usuall possible to sue those "SPAMMERS". Most often, "SPAM" originates from VERY LARGE COMPANIES who have a LOT OF MONEY MOST OFTEN, and these companies don't want to lose their reputation in the "SPAM" industry, therefore they are usually willing to give plaintiffs A LOT OF MONEY to settle their claims.
I CAN ALREADY HEAR YOU SAY "HOW CAN I SUE SPAMMERS TOO AND RECEIVE A LOT OF SETTLEMENT MONEY ?" !
IF YOU SEND ME A RESPONSE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS MESSAGE, I'LL INTRODUCE YOU TO MY NEW BOOK CALLED "HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY SUE SPAMMERS AND RECEIVE A LOT OF SETTLEMENT MONEY". MY BOOK NORMALLY COSTS IN EXCESS OF $85 FROM NORMAL RETAIL CHANNELS, BUT ONLY FOR YOU, I OFFER YOU THIS INCREDIBLE MONEY-MAKING TOOL FOR ONLY $19.99 !!
DON'T PASS UP YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE THE MONEY YOU DESERVE. SEND ME A RESPONSE RIGHT NOW, OR CALL ME AT THE NUMBER BELOW.
THANK YOU DEAR FRIEND !
email: SUCKER_RESPONSE@HOTMAIL.COM
phone: 1-800-YOU-SUCK
**********
THIS IS A ONE-TIME EMAIL, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANYMORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS INCREDIBLE OFFER.
The only reason spam is so prevalant is because there are still enough suckers out there who respond to it and buy into the schemes. We need to do one of two things. Either successfully educate the suckers so the spam becomes uneconomical, or compile a real list of suckers and find a way to convince the spammers to ONLY spam them, and not the rest of the world.
Neither of these things will happen, unfortunately.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Most of us hate spam, but there are always those stupid users that click on every email promising another money-making opportunity. If you make an authenticated-mail protocol, that means everyone needs to use it, but those people targeted by spammers are the late adopters of new tech, so I don't think it would work too well.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
This is why XNS (a next generation DNS replacement) needs to be adopted ASAP by the worldwide technical community. For example, here is the white paper on spam filtering. In a nutshell, if someone who is not on your acceptable email list wants to send you an email, they must first (and this is all automatically handled by the software) accept an agreement which dictates your exact privacy requirements. If it is a personal email with actual valid content, clearly they will simply accept the agreement and automatically be added to your list. On the other hand, bulk email spammers (hereafter referred to as "Dickwads") will probably not like the section talking about your fees for accepting bulk advertising. :)
he's full of shit. it would serve him right if there really was a chemical attack in chicago later on. you can be the feds would be interested in Slashdot's IP logs...
Spam is Free Speaaech (A Troll)
No more government regulation (aynrand666) All problems have a technical solution. Just hit delete.I know more than you do (karmawhore23) I am cleverer than you.
How about banning spam, regardless of the label? Quibbling over labels of these kind of attacks is like arguing over whether burglars should be required to wear striped Hamburglar suits or "ROBBER" signs on their backs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The simplest reasons that spammers "get away with it":
1) Forged headers (SMTP auth would alleviate)
2) ISPs turn a blind eye or aren't as responsive as they should be. Many are repeat offenders which labels them "soft" on spam prevention.
A lot of people have already commented on #1 so I'm going to skip that one.
In short, the accountability should come to the ISP, because they are the ones you inevitably allow this to happen. @Home or similar could implement a per day limit on outbound emails, same for the fre services, Yahoo! and Hotmail. There needs to be a clearinghouse for spam notification, someone who tracks spam and spammers, period. Fines should be imposed on ISPs who allow bulk email to originate from their service. Their choice should be simple: don't let spam originate from your system or face the penalty (steep fines, this could be used to fund the clearinghouse). Leniency could be worked into this, an ISP may have X number of reports per day based on the number of IPs they have. X should shrink every year.
The clearinghouse should also be audited on a yearly basis and the results made public (what ISPs spam the most/least, amount of fines paid, etc)
Hammer of Truth
Block quoth the poster:
I still think its fairly hopeless, but I also believe forging SMTP headers should be legally punishable by castration.
There is a realistic protocol change that would make it impossible to spam without getting caught.
When the message arrives at the destination server, a confirmation packet is sent back to the alleged source with a checksum of the content of the message and a confirmation code. If the source has sent an email to the server that matches the checksum, it sends the confirmation code back to the server. If the server never recieves a reply with the confirmation code it sent out (in other words, if the alleged sender doesn't exist), it automatically deletes the email after 30 seconds. The whole cycle would last less than a second, depending on lag, so you wouldn't have to worry about losing email that you have sent unless you turn off your computer very quickly. This protocol would make it impossible to spoof IP/email addresses, etc, when sending email. Then the spammers could be tracked down easily and thrown in jail.
Repeal the DMCA!
U.S. businesses generally oppose restrictions, equating advertising with free speech.
"If you ban me from this type of medium, you have severely limited my ability to enter into the marketplace," said Jerry Cerasale of the Direct Marketing Association.
God DAMN IT, for the LAST time, spam is not a free speech issue, it's a property rights issue. My computer is NOT a public utility for every sleazy marketing dink in the world to use at MY expense.
If Mr. Cerasleazy wants to "enter the marketplace", he can damn well pay for his advertising.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Example protocol:
220 foo.bar.com CASHMAIL System
...
HELO
250 foo.bar.com Hello
MAIL FROM: spammer@mail.com
250 spammer@mail.com... Sender ok
RCPT TO: foo@bar.com
666 foo@bar.com requires payment of 20 cents
CASH: 82kd0xma893mcos0
667 foo.bar.com accepts payment of 20 cents
DATA
I think some work in the IETF has been done on spam prevention, but no one has even tried to standardize it.
The problem isn't going to be solved by suing spammers. why? Well,
because spammers are spread out around the globe
Because spammers highjack networks to send out their bulk mail
Because a lot of spammers aren't even legit cies
Because it is too easy to spam from a bogus account, or for that matter from pretty much any email account using a bot that anybody can write.
All in all, spamming is as controllable as peer-to-peer, as long as people really want to spam, there's not much you can do against it. As long as there's money to make, people that don't have money will be tempted, and unfortunatly a lot of those people are in countries in which there is little or no legislation (not that's it's better in more developped countries)...
Imperium et libertas
Autocracy and freedom
Many of these spammers send from hotmail.com or from email addresses that are not in the US. So how would I go about suing them? Even assuming that I could sue them, how could I manage to go about collecting my settlement from them?
I'm afraid suing is not the answer to ending all spam, just a small class of spam.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
When Spammers try to sue you (posted last week)
/. would allow me to post ASCII art of a can of SPAM Luncheon Meat). Oh well, guess I'm lame.
I have a feeling that should changes be made, the spammer (who shall remain nameless) mentioned in the story will be living in a cardboard box in the streets of Chicago. And for lunch every day, he will only be able to afford cans of SPAM Luncheon Meat
(I wish
Some flaws, but a good direction:
- DNS could be hacked and the TTL set extremely low (most people wouldn't notice).
- Free mail services.
- Open relays are still a problem.
Hammer of Truth
castration ? Does that mean all spammers are males ?
Signup at http://www.oNumber.net, and exchange oNumbers with friends. Avoid putting e-mail address on business cards etc and use oNumeber instead. By using the guest list system, only authorized people get to see your actual contact info. It's not free, but it's free of advertising and O'WONDER (who own oNumber) will not sell or release your info to anyone. Slashdot reader feedback encouraged.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Should be impregnated by the geek they send spam to.
Who knows, maybe you'll finally get some for a change?
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
220 foo.bar.com CASHMAIL System
HELO
250 foo.bar.com Hello
MAIL FROM: mom@aol.com
667 foo.bar.com accepts payment of 0 cents
DATA
..
MAIL FROM: unknown_spammer@hotmail.com
250 unknown_spammer@hotmail.com... Sender ok
RCPT TO: foo@bar.com
666 foo@bar.com requires payment of 200 cents
CASH: 82kd0xma893mcos0
667 foo.bar.com accepts payment of 200 cents
DATA
...
MAIL FROM: known_spammer@hotmail.com
250 known_spammer@hotmail.com... Sender ok
RCPT TO: foo@bar.com
666 foo@bar.com requires payment of 1.0e09 cents
CASH: 82kd0xma893mcos0
666 foo.bar.com detects fraudulent/forged e-coin. Forwarding to fbi.gov
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Then she should get impregnated by the geeks she has offended.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
might be a better idea if rape was punishable by castration first...
I run my own mail server, running qmail with the rblsmtpd daemon, pointing at several "underground", i.e. not for pay, black hole lists. In addition, there are spam _content_ filtering tools out there such as spamassassin, which looks for common telltale fingerprints in email. WORK FROM HOME, MAKE MONEY FAST, etc. etc. etc.
It can be done, with a little work.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I know I forge headers all the time. Not to spam people, but to avoid my email address being farmed by spambots.
Certainly, wording from any law should have exclusionary cases, where the intent is not to advertise, etc.
Bernard Schifman may then sue you for trying to sue him for sending spam.
a Bernard Schifman Cluster of these suits!
Having open SMTP relays should be punishable by castration.
I must have recieved 200 e-mails on "farm action" and "hot family sex." I've never visited any such site nor have I ever responded to their e-mails... what makes them think that I'm suddenly gonna be interested in these deviant sexual activities... they should offer uhm... I dunno... NORMAL sexual behavior? I mean, hot playmates and stuff. They've gotta get their act together and stop catering to this select audience of sickos -- rather, they should attempt to appeal to the masses.
Sorry. Venting. Thank you.
The deal is this. I will stomp this cute kitten to death with my heavy boots if you moderate me down.
You don't want the cute kitten dead, now do you?
I was delighted the other day to find out that Iowa had an anti-spam law. I promptly requested 'remove' on all the 'psudo-opt-in' type spam (no, buying a list from someone does not mean that the people on it want your crap). Of course, under Iowa law I need to opt out before I can do anything, unless the spam is forged.
One of the 'university diploma' spams was illegal under Iowa law (invalid return address), but, of course how do you sue for something like that? I tried looking on reverse phone number sites to see who owned the phone number advertised, but nothing showed up.
Are there any ways to find out who sends these out without incurring a large expense?
Hrm, I wonder how long before someone starts sending out "make money suing spammers, call today for your free kit." spam.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Free mail systems could log the IPs of all their users and stop spoofs with a similar system.
Repeal the DMCA!
>With what, body odor? Boring speeches
I didn't know there was something wrong with GWB's body odor.
That's not castration, the women can still have children. It's more commonly called 'female circumcision' or 'cliterectomy'(sp?)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think it's time to apply Truth in Advertising standards to spam.
You say your product will help me lose weight? We send a rebuttal picture of your naked fat ass to everyone you know.
You say your product will make my penis gain 3"? We get testimonial from your two mercy fucks about how you need to use this product yourself.
You say your product will get me hot dates every weekend? We distribute a copy of your busy social calendar - with a note that you were stood up for the sole entry, your Jr. Prom in 1989.
And lest we forget it, you say your product will net me $50,000 in only 10 weeks? We show your credit card bills, and how even Miss Cleo has cut you off as a deadbeat.
The best thing of all si that this doesn't really require any new laws. (Well, the suggestions above do, but not the concept.) Don't just nail the spammers with small fines for sending spam, hit them with large fines for fradulant advertising, participation in criminal enterprises, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I've sued phone spammers, the type who use a machine that calls people and plays a recording, which as been blatantly illegal for almost 10 years.
I've won, but it takes more work than the $500 you win is worth even when you do win, and on average it's something you do only on principle and not for money.
And thus few do it. When I have been in court the judges/commissioners have said they don't often (if at all) see these cases.
Laws are not the answer to spam. In spite of what people say it is not just a question of "it's not a free speech issue it's a property issue."
Spam involves rights in conflict. It's a free speech issue AND a property issue AND a privacy issue, all in one. The answers are not so simple as these laws suggest.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
i would be very happy if anybody could tell me a solution what to do with spammers, who only use Fax-Numbers to respond. I have a massive problem with a guy who is using my domainname as sender adress. He always sends via open relays in taiwan, korea and all these countries and he always includes to fax numbers in the US. I do get an average of 500 bounces per day from mails this guy sent, because the recipient does not exist. Since he uses my domain i get these bounces every day. I am now collecting every day IPs of the open relays this guy uses and submitting them to ordb.org Open Relay DataBase, but obviously this is not the way to stop this.
I read alot on pages dealing with spam, many of them were pointing to ftc.gov which one should contact if a company of the US is doing spammings. But besides reporting that guy what can one do. i cannot phone up the telco and ask them to shut down these well known numbers (i saw procmail recipies of other people who in their spamfilters had these fax numbers included)
any hints or help would be greatly aprreciated
Lord "not Gargamel's Cat!" Azrael
That would just force spammers to use their own servers to spam, and there is enough of that going on already... or it is contracted out to third party "media services." It seriously pisses me off that in the year 2002, MS Outlook does not provide message filtering based on header content. I could filter out that remaining one percent of spam that sneaks through... but I digress. I hate the boilerplate disclaimer that insinuates that I have signed up for spam through the spammer or a partner company... I get a ton of spam directed to my default username through my ISP- and I've NEVER used that email (you know the name where they take your name and add a few numbers that none of your friends can ever remember?). My work used the same ISP for awhile, and there were already spams waiting for me before I sent even a single email... which tells me a little something about the ISP.... but again, I digress. I don't know that there are any technological solutions that I am comfortable with. On one hand, I appreciate the ability to send certain email anonymously, or to use a yahoo mail address that doesn't give my name. The other issue with using a handshake is that it seems a lot of email is cached. It has taken several hours for me to receive emails at work, whether I've emailed myself at home, or whether a co-worker has phoned to follow up with something sent to me. I've received Fed-Ex packages faster than some emails. It seems conceivable that emails could be lost in transit while the other server is waiting for confirmation (seems it could go both ways).
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
sorry for the offtopic post, but i have been wondering this for a while, and there is no better place to ask....
WHEN THE HELL IS SEGFAULT.ORG COMING BACK UP
What about spamming on instant messaging systems such as ICQ? I know that I can (and have) blocked people who are not friends, but are there any laws against spamming of that sort? Or do we just have to wait until it becomes a larger industry?
Yeh, spam is annoying, so we should replace the entire domain name system. It is true that email information is integrated into the DNS system (MX records and stuff), but not to that level.
Secondly, it wouldn't really stop any spam anyway. Just because you 'claim' that they should owe you money for spamming doesn't that they actually will. And a huge number of spammers right now are committing crimes by hacking open relays/AOL accounts and the like right now. What's to prevent them from doing the same under XNS? I mean, even if the 'privacy policy' is enforceable by law, it doesn't mean that all spammers are going to start following it. And 'legit' spammers already have opt-outs.
Spam prevention (especially retarded crap that you outlined) does not belong in the DNS system. I'm not saying that the DNS system doesn't need to be replaced, but spam prevention doesn't belong it it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think companies like MSN/Microsoft/Hotmail, yahoo, excite and @home should be doing the suing.
Everytime someone forges an e-mail address using their domain name, and someone forwards it to abuse@something.com then it costs them money to research it. It could also be considered slander if someone sends you an e-mail from something like animalsex@microsoft.com.
Don't they care about their PR? I mean now I think that Microsoft has something to do with bestiality. How do I know that it wasn't really from them?? I'll just keep assuming that till proven otherwise.
The problem with a national law, with any law, is that it defines "safe turf" for both sides.
If Congress debated such a law, I'm sure that the DMA would yell and scream and "compromise" that it is willing to make it illegal to send unsolicited email of a criminal nature. Outlaw the pyramid schemes, outlaw the cock&tit creams that don't have FDA approval, etc.
Meanwhile, in the same spirit of compromise, it's now Federal law that companies can ignore repeated requests that you be removed from their spam lists because you have a bona fide business relationship. It doesn't matter that this "relationship" was a one-time purchase of a Christmas present a decade ago for a person who's long been out of your life - you might need another left-handed bacon turner some day and if they can't sent you reminders, you'll buy it elsewhere!
Likewise the legislation would undoubtably protect affiliated businesses - the reason I briefly got investment solicitations from my car insurance carrier, until I made it clear they were about to lose the latter account. It will even protect attempts to woo you away from existing businesses - you drive, so therefore you should hear about Fly-By-Night insurance rates. And Bob's detailing shop. And on and on and on....
I'm not saying that legislation would never be appropriate, just that it's too early to do it at the national level. Let's get a clear concensus that spam is a problem, then use the federal law *only* to normalize things like mandatory subject lines.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
This is an easy social solution for end users. In my experience, spammers screen out possible users by username. So the key is to choose a name most spammers won't screen.
:-) )
Examples of bad usernames follow. Scroll down for summary.
________________________________
Here are some bad usernames, and the reasons why.
Username: morgan@mail.com
Spammer's reaction: Morgan's a guy's name! I'll send him pr0n! (Never mind that I'm a heterosexual female.
Username: blahblah1969@mail.com
Spammer's reaction: 69! I'll send this guy pr0n!
Username: nerd@mail.com
Spammer's reaction:This guy's a nerd that never got laid! I'll send him pr0n AND computer products!
Username: princess@mail.com
Spammer's reaction: Princess, eh? I'll send her all my products!
Username:ironknuckle@mail.com
Spammer's reaction: He must lift weights. I'll send him stuff to build his body!
Username: hasaki@mail.com
Spammer's reaction: My Japanese friend will like this guy. (Sends Japanese spam.)
Username: nurdchik8@mail.com
Spammer's reaction: Well, it's possibly nerd, maybe a female, and what does that 8 mean? I don't have pr0n, would he or she like computer stuff? What does 8 mean again? (Skips name.)
___________________________________
End of examples. Summary follows.
If you're an end user, avoid the following:
*Obvious gender references
*Numbers that could be construed as sexual references, or birthday years
*Names that may be perceived as a potential marketing group (princess, superstrongWWF)
*Names that may indicate you are a certain nationality or ethnic group
This doesn't prevent you getting spam completely. At least you'll start off spam free with the right username, like I have.
Here's an interesting method of reducing spam called HashCash:
Basically, you have to spend a certain amount of CPU time to send each message so sending large amounts of spam requires much more work. The reason n-bit partial hash collisions are used "is that they can be made arbitrarily expensive to compute (by choosing the desired number of bits of collision), and yet can be verified instantly." Sounds like an interesting idea, no? They've even produced a high rate of inflation for HashCash because of Moore's Law. Plus it has a funky name
--jobby
Unsolicited bulk email is used with such frequency because it is so incredibly cheap. This convinces those who use it, that it has a positive return on investment. In order to reduce the amount of spam, it is necessary to increase the cost of sending it. Digital postage is the only way to reduce spam.
This would be analogous to the stamps used on snail mail, now. If nobody else steps up to the plate, some corporations will try to do this for a profit, or national governments will try to do it for control. The better solution, however, is some sort standards-based decentralized digital postage, where everyone can issue their own estamps. It is then up to each individual to decide, how much a spammer has to pay to get to their inbox.
Of course to be widely adopted, this has to be well integrated into email clients. It also has to be completely painless to insure that your friends always have enough of your stamps on-hand.
Once in place, the benefits include:
- less spam
- no need for email size limits, because there would be an obvious mechanism to allow billing for arbitrarily large emails
- automatic payment method for email based customer support
Block quoth the poster:
That would just force spammers to use their own servers to spam, and there is enough of that going on already...
No, I mean the destination server. When you send an email to "user@domain.com", the email goes to the "domain.com" server and is stored there until the user downloads it. The spammers would have to either control your ISP, or somehow intercept the packet with the conformation code to be able to spam without revealing their IP address. A bit of cryptography would make it prohibitively difficult to send mass spam the latter way.
Repeal the DMCA!
Well, I belive the reason that 'sicko' sites spam whereas 'normal' sites do not is that the main-stream porn industry simply does not spam at all. The practice has been banned by the industry association. Any pornographic spam you get is for cheap companies and individuals who are not really a part of the industry.
Btw, if you do want some normal porn, I know a great website you might want to check out...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
So what you are saying is that only men can be punished for SPAMMING in your mind? I am sure there are women SPAMMING out there too! What part of their anatomy are you going to cut off? The National Organization for Women would like to know...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
In the end we find out that it was all just a lucid dream while he is in a cryogenic chamber.
Well, not exactly. You're right in that that's all it technically does for us. However, this leads us to two potential advantages:
- When the spammer is identifiable, they don't tend to last long because the volume of incoming complaints tends to overload the ISP.
- It makes it easier to create a groupware blocking system - for example, 10,000 people subscribe, and the system requires three subscribers to complain about an address before it's blocked. A spammer sends spam and it hits 8237 of the subscribers. The first three to see it click the "this is spam" button, and the system automatically removes the mail from the inboxes of the other 8234 subscribers who got it and blocks all future email from the sender.
You're right, but again, the volume of incoming complaints (and denial of service attacks) tends to make the ISPs balk at hosting spammers. Once they're tracable, the attacks begin, and the ISPs dump the spammers.The problem is, we need a completely new email system with authentication, and we need mail clients that handle both it and the current standard seamlessly... because practically nobody is going to make a hard switch over to a new email system that will prevent most of their friends and associates from emailing them, and very few people are going to be willing to run two separate email clients. It would be best if the server-side software supported both standards as well, so server admins don't have to feel that they're getting an additional piece of software to support. Moreover, everything has to support every major platform and some of the more prominent minor ones so it can support a massive switchover and won't piss off users of any particular platform by not properly supporting them.
Java, anyone?
Don't forget to search "bulk email" on www.overture.com and click on a few links every day to make coders of spamming software loose money
Wrong. But thanks for the typical knee-jerk no-thinking solution. The vast majority of spamming originates from machines in Russia, other former Soviet states, and China. Most companies that spam are ghost corporations, legally residing in a small island in the Pacific. A US law cannot touch these people. It won't work any more than regulating porn or gambling online. The Net is a whole new set of rules. A simple "let's just make it illegal" won't even come close to solving the problem.
Read up on Bernard Shifman
I know hes been featured here on slashdot, but Shifman just goes to prove you can't legislate against stupidity
Start forwarding all the spam to Congress.
Anyway I'm sure the state attorney general's office can make the phone company cough up an address where the bill for that number is sent, if you get them interested.
Remember that if the address is a PO box, the post office has the physical address of the boxholder.
I know what you are saying- the point I am making is that "the alleged source" of the spam would simply end up being a "legitimate" server with a legitimate return address... that the alleged sender would indeed exist. Spammers would merely have to change their tactics.
I appreciate everything you are saying, and it makes perfect sense. However, it is easy enough to set up a fly-by-night server, dump a boatload of spam that directs people to yet another third party site, be shut down for violating TOS, and set up another operation through another ISP. I don't think spammers would have any issue with revealing their IP address for purposes of spamming. The site that they direct users to for purposes of their business is already revealed- although the lowbrow spam is just as often on a geocities page as it is a registered site. I've reported a few violations like this to Yahoo just to see how long it takes to respond- and it can take weeks! The oddest thing this they could use their own technology to notice there are a bunch of spam sites sitting on THEIR own servers that are requesting credit card info, etc. (But these sites obviously are not even using their own IP addresses, etc...)
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
What about countries without governments? What if someone spams from overseas? Or from a country with other problems on it's hands like Somalia, or Iraq? There isn't a way to punish them legally.
Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
Try calling your state's attorney general's office and explaining the situation to them. Sometimes they can be surprisingly helpful, particularly if you can do a good job of explaining yourself (like pointing out repeatedly that they're doing this *incredibly* *loathesome* thing in *your* *name* and that it's just *destroying* the good name of your business) and can come off as genuinely hurt and confused.
If you got any threatening complaints about the spam, you could bring those up too, and claim that you fear for your life because of what this person is doing in your name.
The police might be willing to help, too.
You have public law enforcement resources. Use them. It's not just the RIAA and MPAA that have a right to call in the cops. You do too. Go for it. If THEY catch the spammer, and prosecute them for identity theft, defaming you, or whatever, the spammer will be in for a lot worse than having their relay shut down.
The main thing I see is that the best idea is to somehow transfer costs back to the spammer. So an idea that forces the spamming computer to use up resources is fine.
similarly, a solution that causes you to spend time implementing more technical solutions is costing you time, and probably money.
bottom line: Make the spammer pay.
In my original example, the smtp could also be set to have several levels of trust, with corresponding levels of computional feedback for the sender.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Correct Arachne link
*sigh* too tired too post...
Long way to go, eunuchs!
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
That'll make them think twice before they pull another /Bernie/ /Shifman/ !
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Go into your security and privacy settings, and make sure you do not accept:
(a) multi-recipient messages from people not on your contact list
(b) WWPager messages
(c) messages from people not on your contact list
(d) require other users to get your authorization before they add you to their contact lists.
ICQ spam will disappear completely. And, uh, oh yeah...don't forget to use Trillian (www.trillian.cc), it's smaller and faster than ICQ...
I like the bit of, "This is not SPAM in accordance with pending bill...
"I am a canadian attorney and this is legal according to US postal laws...".
Fight Spammers!
This is revealing, however the real text of the interview is more so:
Interviewer: I'm calling regarding Congressional action on spam.
Jerry Cerasale: If you ban me from this type of medium, you have severely limited my ability to enter into the marketplace.
I: But surely with all the ads for porn, casinos and viagra substitutes that you'd be competing with, it's not going to be of any use to you anyway.
JC: You're not listening. I said if you ban me from entering the marketplace. You can ban everybody else.
I: So you're saying you want to ban everybody except Jerry Cerasale from using spam?
JC: No, I want to ban unethical marketers from using spam.
I: How do you define unethical marketers?
JC: They're the ones that forge stuff and won't honor remove requests.
I: So won't they just start following that law and you'll still have the volume problem?
JC: No, because they're unethical marketers.
I: So who are the ethical marketers
JC: They're the DMA members
I: So if the unethical marketers join the DMA do they become ethical marketers?
JC: Of course.
I: Even if they still forge and don't honor remove requests?
JC: Yes. If they join the DMA, then what they are doing is ethical marketing.
I: Surely all the spammers will just join the DMA then and they can all spam.
JC: That's OK.
I: But then won't email be useless for everybody because of the volume? After all, there's got to be hundred of millions of potential marketers out there who might want to use it.
JC: Yes.
I: So you're opposed to laws that will make spam unusable for marketing?
JC: Yes.
I: But you realise that if the laws aren't passed, spam will be unusable for anything.
JC: Yes.
I: Including marketing.
JC: Yes.
I: So really your opposition to laws banning spam achieves nothing to protect it for marketing, and just succeeds in destroying it for everybody.
JC: That's right - if me and my DMA buddie's can't use it for our purposes, then nobody can use it for any purposes.
I: Isn't that a little childish.
JC: Well since they won't play by my rules I would take by bat and ball and go home, but I don't own the bat or the ball, so the only way I can stop them from playing is by destroying the bat and the ball.
I: Mr Cerasale, thank-you for your time.
JC: My pleasure.
Why cannot the false advertising laws be used against spammers - False subjects, false return addresses...?
i just want to know how to get rid of taiwanese spam that crashes my computer when it tries to download.
i'm using spamcop but it just keeps mutating and multiplying.
man bernie is screwed. I wonder if the gonvernment will be as patient as neil when trying to impart a clue on spammers
The biggest problem with spam is the increased traffic load.
The spammers are the problem, not the spamees.
These subjects almost temp me to watch home-shopping, it's Amazing!
...
...
... why do I still get them almost the size of my screen? ...
Only tv-home-shoppingdo have products that work (sometimes)
I would never buy anything that would be sent thru e-mail; why are they still bugging me with more than 30 messages a day? Harvested from my sites and company information
I would also never buy anything via banners
I like to choose what I receive on my screen and not "swallow or chuckle"... Banners is not that annoying though the Real Spam(tm) is annoying as hell.
I cannot trust my mailbox anymore if somebody important mails me or somebody who has "Extremely good news" for me so I can take a loan I can't take (US spam to Belgian citizen) or how to enlarge my breasts (while being male!).
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
... or inches in this case :)
Seems to be popular though since spammers are still spending money for their advertising lists and are giving money to earn money...
(on a not-so-good way)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
That should already clear up a-lot!
Something else (what I have not found yet) that can be used is a system:
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
There comes a time when negotiations fail, and you must DOS. I doubt you wnat to do so since you made a spectacle of yourself with the complaints, so who else with me? I hate this smallpoxteam.com MF more than you. He has 8,100 "orders" I just sent. Remember to proxy and randomize, I am sure he rejects duplicate IPs/text. .bzah.com/
c om /
m /?NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN [29,750 more n's]
BTW, that EMpire Towers asshole
http://www.ca1.waredet.net.co.fr|https.travel
is really
http://www.cell.tb.net.co.fr.https.dial3.goopt.
(never mind the fake "animation history" homepage it shows when you come in with the unencrypted URL).
Logbust his ass with http://www.cell.tb.net.co.fr.https.dial3.goopt.co
I get a lot of SPAM, it came all of a sudden and hasn't let up and the jerks won't take me off their list (okay, I was a little optimistic). So, I took the time to find the email addresses of the spammers (from their own web sites, from WHOIS, etc), and I simply add them to my "SPAM" filter which then sends a copy of each piece of SPAM I get to all of these addresses.
Will this fix the problem? No. Am I adding to the bandwidth waste, yeah. Sorry, but it was the best solution I could come up with.
One of the biggest offenders is a company in San Francisco. I live in Virginia and thought I'd try to sue them under VA law. The problem is collecting on an out-of-state spammer is difficult. So, I spoke to my cousin who is a lawyer in San Francisco and asked him if I could sue them under CA. law. For one thing, CA. allows for 5 times the compensation per e-mail than VA, which was very appealing. Unfortunately he said it probably wouldn't apply to an out-of-state recpient of the SPAM.
So, really, the only way to get rid of it in the States is to make a national law that's tough and easy to enforce. Otherwise, do what I do, pester them.
Actually, SPAM(tm) is rather expensive stuff. Might I suggest the cheaper (and much less tasty Treet(tm) meat-like product.)
PS: Seeing all the "smokers" eating cans of "Smeat" was the funniest part of WaterWorld.
PPS: A can of SPAM(tm) was seen on an episode of Outward Bound (in the rocky mtns) a few weeks ago. They didn't actually show the logo, but I know what SPAM(tm) looks like.
The difference is, in peer to peer, people WANT to be in touch with each other. Who the hell wants to hear from a spammer? When sharing (you DO share and not leech, right?), don't you check the guy downloading off of you to see if he's a leech? and then punt him if he is? That's an example of unwanted peer to peer.
It originates from a spammer in Poland. You probably opened the email as HTML. If you look at the source, you will see all the graphics have your email address in them eg http://www.incestsex.con/?from=you@work-email.con
Once he has your address, its like herpes, you'll never get rid of him. Enjoy all the spam you will be getting from him in the future.
HOWEVER, if there is someone you hate, (for instance, a spammer), type his name instead of yours after the URL to one of these sites. Come to think of, DON'T -- a spammer probably would like HOT LOLITA SEX.COM
I hope the Israelis would start their biological war against the arabs already! They're trying to find DNA sequences unique for arabs and target these with viral agents. Hopefully, the disease the Israelis choose will take a few years to kill all the arabs, so that the arabs have time to annihilate as many kikes as possible before the Earth is rid of both those pests.
First, legislation is a good step, but it will not stop spam. Because the net is really world-wide. No US law is going to stop spam from Korea or Moldova.
Second, about 25% of spam I get is from first-time spamers. Every day some idiot salesman invents this new cool way of advertising. He might quite sincerely not understand the difference between direct mail and spam. He will learn eventually, but we would get spam anyways.
The real solution is to charge sender for sending mail. E-money won't work in the near future - there is no infrastructure for it. Instead, the mail recepient should bill his own ISP for every piece of mail. The per piece price cannot exceed a certain amount (let's say $1 or $5 or even $0.15). The ISP charges the sender's ISP for the cost and processing fee. The sender ISP passes the cost to the sender.
The infrastructure could be built the same way as HTTPS. If an ISP wants to participate, it gets a certificate from a root authority, sets a server for "SMTPS" and for billing. The SMTPS session is signed. There could be some price negotiation between SMTPS servers too. SMTPS would have to be properly amended.
This would be very similar to peering agreements between ISPs. The system could get started if 3-4 large digital carriers agreed on the standard. Others could join later.
The only thing that it's accomplished was a brief round of spammers adding tag lines that said "This message isn't spam because I've complied with the labeling laws. The proposed Senate Bill S.1618 was a more popular excuse for that, so it was a useful pattern to feed spam filters in mail messages.
They've also popularized remove-me lists which confirm your address's validity: "We're happy to remove you from our 'Get Rich Starting January 1' mailing list and hope our 'Get Rich Starting January 2' and 'Get Viagra Starting January 3' lists will serve you better!".
"National boundaries are just speedbumps on the information superhighway." US State boundaries are even more so - unlike US telephone numbers, which give a somewhat strong hint about where a recipient's fax or voice phone is, or snail mail addresses, there's usually no way to determine where the recipient lives, so no way to determine whether any anti-spam or anti-birth-control-information or anti-religious-content or anti-political-incorrectness laws apply to the recipient (or their email server), so US senders of spam can argue lack of scienter in any legal cases. But spammers can just move offshore. Or they can pretend to move offshore (either buy service outside the US, or abuse open relays offshore) and be hard to trace, or they can set up corporations in a large number of non-US jurisdictions, and have the corporation be responsible for the spam, or for that matter set up cheap disposable US corporations that are sending the spam that can go bankrupt in case anybody successfully catches and busts them.
They're scum, but we need to find other ways to stop them. (And unfortunately, anti-spam and anti-cracking laws do make it tough to mailbomb the suckers or eliminate them directly....)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think companies like MSN/Microsoft/Hotmail, yahoo, excite and @home should be doing the suing.
Well, maybe, perhaps not. Companies will sue if it's in their interest. If their network becomes good enough to handle the congestion from spam, and the amount of spam doesn't vary too much as a customer moves from ISP to ISP, it's conceivable that the providers might begin to view spam as the customer's problem (as they pretty much do now). And even if they do start suing- who benefits from that directly? Besides the obvious value as a deterrent to spammers, there isn't much justice being done if the plaintiffs are all going to be large ISPs. The parties most damaged by spam are the end users and especially the smaller ISPs.
I always thought class action lawsuits by the actual recipients of spam are the most logical way to counter spam if the approach is going to be via the courts. After all, have you ever received a single, individual spam that's caused you to consider taking the case to court against that particular spammer, with lawyers and court costs and all that hassle? With a judge that might ask "well why didn't you just hit delete?" And getting that single spam email message isn't really what you're suing over. It's the degradation of your daily routine, the tedium of having to delete a hundred emails a day year in and year out, the loss of almost a day of your life per year deleting countless messages about herbal Viagara and credit repair software and diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities and hair loss and government grants info packages and an EZ way to consolidate debt and reducing all payments by 60% and frisky teens. Going to court over a single spam seems to miss the point. And it's expensive and inconvenient to sue as an individual, so a spammer might very well recognize that his individual spam probably isn't going to elicit a lawsuit if it isn't outrageous enough for a spammed plaintiff to choose as THE spam (out of the 10000 in his box) that he's going to go to court over. In fact, people tend to sue when the spam particularly offends them (e.g. when it talks about sex with minors, or has nude photos in it and is received by a minor). Unless things proceed to the point where every spam message sent out results in a lawsuit, a spammer that keeps his emails polite and sticks ADV in the header is pretty much safe from being sued. So you don't even get much of a deterrent effect.
Unless we switch to using class action suits, which don't have these problems if someone with the resources starts consistently nailing all spammers with them. It's much easier than taking a case to court yourself. Someone is doing the suing for you and you get to hang on like a million other freeloaders and enjoy the fruits of your class action. I almost wouldn't mind getting spam if I knew there was a chance that I could stick it to the spammer for a few cents along with thousands of other people. If I even got a fraction of a penny on average per message, we could still be talking about some serious money. And it certainly wouldn't be too hard to set up. In fact (if this were 1999) you could probably build a dot-com out of it somehow, to coordinate the spam submissions, identify plaintiffs and defendants, litigate in court, hire collections agencies, and process the payments back to all plaintiffs. That's more of a business plan than many dot-coms had. I think that if there weren't so many jurisdictional problems with the idea in general (and if there were more spam laws) someone would try this.
I mean now I think that Microsoft has something to do with bestiality. How do I know that it wasn't really from them??
Strictly speaking, even if it turns out the email wasn't from Microsoft, it still doesn't prove that Microsoft has nothing to do with bestiality.
"If you ban me from this type of medium, you have severely limited my ability to enter into the marketplace," said Jerry Cerasale of the Direct Marketing Association.
Here's the punchline:
Jerry Cerasale
Direct Marketing Association
Washington Office
1111 19th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
UNITED STATES
phone: (202)955-5030
fax: (202)955-0085
web: http://www.the-dma.org
Contact List by Subject
Accounts Payable
webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1353
Advertising - Print
webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1423
Advertising - Web Site
kebeling@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1554
Awards - ECHO
echo@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1397
Benefits Program
twalsh@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1423
DMA Store - Books & More
lrc@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1930
Chapters
chapters@the-dma.org 212.768.7277
Conference Registration
customerservice@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1500
Conference Programming
conference@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1513
Conference Exhibitors
conference@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2469
Conference Speakers
conference@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1528
Consumer Assistance
consumer@the-dma.org 212.790.1488
Councils
councils@the-dma.org 212.768.7277
Council Membership
councils@the-dma.org 212.768.7277
Council Events
councils@the-dma.org 212.768.7277
DMA Interactive
webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext.1629
Direct Connect
councils@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1575
directvoice
mmicali@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2422
Direct Marketing Educational Foundation
dmef@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1817
The DMA Government Affairs Online Member Outreach Program
Governme@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2405
Government Affairs
Governme@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2405
Human Resources
hr@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1338
International Services
Internat@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1786
Library
lrc@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1930
Membership - Joining DMA
membership@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1155
Membership - Renewal
membership@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1155
Seminar Information
customerservice@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1500
Seminar Registration
customerservice@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1500
President's Office
Presiden@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1604
Press Contact
Privacy
privacy@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2408
Research
lrc@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1637
Sweepstakes
Sweep@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2475
Washington Report
Governme@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2418
Web Site
webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1629
Since he considers spam a legitimate business practice, make sure you forward all your "HOT WET PUSSY!" emails to him so he doesn't miss out on any great deals.
-Legion
A single lawsuit won't do anything to stop spam, but once fifty or one hundred people start suing, it will get too expensive for many spammers. In Washington State, we've nearly a dozen folks filing lawsuits, some of them going for some serious amounts -- to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If you've got spam with a phone number or ordering address in it, you can (usually) track it down to a specific company or person. If it's only got a URL, like those mortgage spams, Washington litigants are filling out the contact forms on the site, then going after the mortgage company that contacts them. When these mortgage companies get hit with a lawsuit, they either want to settle right quick, or they rat out the spammer they hired. I've been focusing on spam with phone numbers, as I find it relatively easy and fun to track down the company behind the number. It may not always be easy to find the spammer, but it's not rocket science either. Anyone can do it given a little bit of time.
The Seattle Times had a good article on Saturday about the anti-spam law, some folks who've been using it, their wins, and the troubles they've encountered with the court system. The biggest issue in Washington is that court clerks and judges aren't fully educated about procedural issues like whether one can sue an out-of-state defendant or for punitive damages in small claims court. (The answer to both is yes.) It's been pretty frustrating for us "trailblazers," as the judges are saying contradictory and often quite stupid stuff.
Here's some nifty links:
For a copy of my 24 page zine, Zen and the art of small claims, send some stamps to PO Box 95227, Seattle, WA 98145. You can also just read it online at my site, but any zinester knows that it's just not the same.
Do those spammers eat SPAM while in prison?
Just wondering...
I recently installed SpamAssassin to filter my mail and throw suspected spam into a separate mail folder. I didn't want to filter out spam completely because I just started using SpamAsassin and wanted to make sure my setup wasn't going to give me too many false positives.
r /i ndex.html?1-cyb
m l
BTW It hasn't yet!
I just recieved the following SPAM I'm posting here for your pleasure.
Spam, about anti-spam software, tagged as spam by SpamAssassin. I love it!
From gdert34@yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 03:16:24 2002
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:28:47 -0500
From: gdert34@yahoo.com
To: 69@innocent.com
Subject: *****SPAM***** No More Junk Mail!
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content analysis details: (14.35 hits, 5 required)
SPAM: Hit! (1.2 points) From: does not include a real name
SPAM: Hit! (1.85 points) From: ends in numbers
SPAM: Hit! (0.5 points) Subject has an exclamation mark
SPAM: Hit! (1.63 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
SPAM: Hit! (0.6 points) BODY: Contains a line >=199 characters long
SPAM: Hit! (1.34 points) BODY: URL of page called "remove"
SPAM: Hit! (1.2 points) BODY: HTML mail with non-white background
SPAM: Hit! (1.83 points) Contains phrases frequently found in spam
SPAM: [score: 18, hits: another email, click here,]
SPAM: [email from, here learn, never receive, one our,]
SPAM: [receive another, removed from, that you, this]
SPAM: [email, you not, your mail]
SPAM: Hit! (0.7 points) Forged yahoo.com 'Received:' header found
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) Received via a relay in inputs.orbz.org
SPAM: [RBL check: found 129.87.207.216.inputs.orbz.org.]
SPAM: Hit! (2 points) Received via a relay in relays.osirusoft.com
SPAM: [RBL check: found 145.48.4.4.relays.osirusoft.com.]
SPAM: Hit! (0.5 points) Received via a relay in ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org
SPAM: [RBL check: found 129.87.207.216.ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org., type: 127.0.0.6]
SPAM:
SPAM: End of SpamAssassin results
BRAND NEW ANTI-SPAM TECHNOLOGY!
Detect & eliminate spam BEFORE it gets to your mail client! Tired of the hundreds of unsolicited commercial email (UCE) infiltrating you mailbox everyday? Now you can do something about it! Seek and Destroy all unwanted junk e-mail at the click of a button, BEFORE it reaches your mailbox!
FEATURES:
Connects to any pop3 server! Eliminates spam BEFORE it reaches your mailbox!
Unlimited Account capability! Add as many e-mail accounts as you desire
User friendly, graphic interface makes spamscanner very easy to use
Scan manually, or let the scanner scan automatically at an auto time interval
GO HERE TO LEARN MORE
http://freehost.0o0o0o0oo0o0o0o0o0o.org/sscanne
Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this contaminant free message
We do concede, a signicant number of electrons may have been inconvenienced.
This email was sent to you on behalf of the the coalition for responsible internet marketing. You are receiving this email because you purchased a product from us in the past, or downloaded software from one of our websites and agreed to allow us to send you offers. If you wished to be removed from this mailing, please utilize our automated removal system here. If you request to be removed, we guarantee that you will never receive another email from us, but ONLY through the use of this product can you ensure that you do not receive ANY commercial emails
http://freehost.0o0o0o0oo0o0o0o0o0o.org/remove.ht
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but this is just complete bullcrap. You are choosing to run sendmail/qmail/exim/postfix on a publically routable IP address (or you are choosing to buy service from someone who does).
Excuse me, but by that logic, there's nothing wrong with me sending you a few hundred gigs an hour on your port 25 until you crash or shut down your mail server.
I have a mailbox outside my house, too: that's not a license for someone to fill it with dog shit or toss a firecracker in it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I read an artical about it somewhere, forgot the offical name. Its not like I'm trying to pose as some kind of 'insider' or something :P
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
so I doubt they are much of a problem yet. It's nearly always US companies that spam me, though I have no interest in viagra teen pyramid schemes.
I submitted this to askSlashdot and it's also in my journal entries, but shouldn't cauce.org have some proposed solutions to ending the spam problem? As in, laws that they think would actually work to benefit consumers, or mail server specs that would actually work to stop spam?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Authentication is perfectly acceptable - it would require a secure protocol and/or some sort of ISP resposbility. Anonymous Mail is simply a mad idea, and unnecessary, and after all, standard SMTP would still be in use anyway.
a pretzel
Step 1: Forward it to whitehouse.gov and get President Bush to proclaim it an "Attack on the American Way of Life" or something.
Step 2: Get President Bush to fire up some cruise missles and remove said spammer in the name of Homeland Defense. And since most email probably passes through American servers at some point anyone can apply.
I see no downside to this approach.
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
This is an idea that has been bouncing around my head for a while, I hope to implement it some day.
.gif or .jpg images (not text!!!), the user must manually type in that number for the message to be accepted. Then the webserver sends the message to my mailserver. If sombody attempts to send an email to my mailserver and it is from the wrong domain, or it doesn't have the right number, then *flush*.
:)
I'm having problems with getting too much unsolicited mail too. The idea I had borrows from something I saw at http://www.godaddy.com when I went to do a whois on my records. Here's the idea:
First, I need a mailserver that will *only* accept incoming emails from a certain domain, the domain of my website. Then I set up my website with a form used to send me email. Then, and this is where I borrow from www.godaddy.com, throw up a random number on the screen using
Is this the perfect solution? Well, no. It kind of puts a block to forwarded mail. (Although if I blocked forwarded mail alltogether I think my mailbox would be a lot less messy...)
It's possible that some day somebody'd come up with a spider that can read the numbers and fake it, but my feeling was that if everybody customized their websites with their own fonts etc, it'd be hard to make a general purpose spider that can spam everybody.
If I ever get a static IP, it's something I intend to try.
"Derp de derp."
I had another idea, it's a little extreme, but I think it's an idea that can be built off of.
I'm a member of a forum that talks about a particular interest of mine. Basically, I log in to a site, and my friends that are online (of that particular interest, obviously I won't find my mom on a CG Art board...) show up and I can message them and check out the recent posts. There is a personal messaging system there so I can send private messages to people. If somebody sends me one, I get a notification on the home page.
Basically, I've obscured the method it takes to get a hold of me. A good chunk of my friends are on that forum, a coupla more are on another forum, and the rest including family are on icq. I've basically weined myself from the need for e-mail. I wouldn't have it at all if sites didn't require it for authorization.
This makes it a lot harder for a spammer to reach me. If every site has a different (and constantly mutating) method of sending messages around, then it's so much harder for spammers to get through.
Whatcha think, sirs?
"Derp de derp."
Kevin DeGraaf spewed this stinking pile of shit:
>I hate spam as much as the next guy, but this is >just complete bullcrap. You are choosing to run >sendmail/qmail/exim/postfix on a publically >routable IP address (or you are choosing to buy >service from someone who does). You can't have
>your cake and eat it too; the second you set up
>(or begin to use) a publically-accessible mail >host, you are accepting mail from anyone, i.e.
>you have a public utility. Don't like it? Use
>tcpwrappers or some other access-control method.
>Even so, email is public. Get off it.
Kevin DeGraaf is turd.
Hey dickwad - yes, you, Kevin DeGraaf - why don't
you post your email address here so that I can
shit in your ever so public inbox.
In a room full of Trolls, there is always one Motherfucker.
- Bitch.
Come on moderators, -1 Troll? this should get a +1 Funny! The parent is obviously a troll, but this is a wonderful piece
Just keep heaping it on...
Laws won't work. Not now, not ever. There's no way in hell you're going to get all 300+ countries in the world to agree - and enforce - anti-spam laws. Many of these countries don't give a rat's ass if you've got a hardon about spam and will tell you to go fuck yourselves if you try to impose foreign law upon them. As is their right.
Your politicians will never use extreme measures to try to get anti-spam laws. No one will ever go to war over spam, or enforce an embargo of any kind. Spam just isn't that important.
Authentication of email, for those who haven't thought it through, allows dictatorial governments to more easily track dissidents. Especially in harsh regimes that tend to put a bullet in a dissident's head. Yeah, real bright solution, authentication is. Of course, those of us in the First World, excepting the U.S. which continues to rocket towards hell in a handbasket, generally don't have to worry about being shot by pissed off government types, so fuck the rest of the world, eh?
Deal with it, like we always have. Complain. Block spammers. Subscribe to blacklists. Find something more important to get your panties in a wad about.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Go to www.overture.com, enter "bulk email" and click on some of the links.
While I agree that we need some form of authentication, we shouldn't need to make it hard to spam.
What we need to do is take away the incentive to spam. ie. clear laws and punishment. Even a way for consumers to effortlessly charge spammers (and their beneficiaries!) for the spam they receive should do.
Because face it, once people know that they can report them and get money for it, they will.
....a technological solution along the lines of:
"You have selected to use sendmail. Please insert your Testicles (privates) into the Spam-Feedback(TM)device to proceed..."
"You are sending 5000 pieces of mail to 5000 recicients, and has one of the known spam subject lines. Your testicles will be kept until the authorities arrive. Have a nice day."
Now if we could just pass a law that ALL computers everywhere had to have these kind of feedback devices, spam would be a thing of the past!
The cost of spam are probably higher than the costs of copyright infringement, so lets write our congressional staff!!
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
There should have been a drowning warning on the box.