Slashdot Mirror
The Economics of Spam
higgins writes "The Wall Street Journal has the best story I've ever seen on the economics of spam. A self-described "spam queen" (Clean link; should work for non-subscribers) talks about not just the millions of emails she spews, but what it costs per mailing ($250 for 500k emails), what the response rates are (1-2 one-thousandths percent) and what she actually makes. (40% of each sale of one product: anti-spam software)."
Here's a new one for you:
The other day, I got spam via my 'windows messaging service' - someone on my cable modem subnet is sending me pop-up spam with the 'net send' command (Windows only). Obviously this is easy to disable (for someone who knows how to) but...
WTF?
I took a screen shot which indicated time/date AND IP but the cableco tech morons said that they couldn't do anything about it? Right... How about revoking access? Perhaps it was the cableco themselves selling this service?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
"I'm just trying to make a living like everyone else," says Ms. Betterly. Her e-mail marketing operation, she says, allows her to raise her children, Chris, 10, and Craig, 11, and to spend quality time with them. "You can call me spam queen, I don't really care. As long as I'm not breaking any laws, you don't have to love me or like what I do for a living."
Not breaking any laws. Riiiiiiiight. Nice values to instill in those kids, too.
so is proper spelling.
WorldCom lets spammers get away with 'first offence'.
Mr. Connell typed a response: "Problem solved. This guy won't receive anything from us again." He flagged the name of the offended e-mail recipient on Ms. Betterly's list so that person wouldn't be contacted again.
WorldCom helps spammers listwash.
WorldCom says that if problems with a spammer persist, the company will send increasingly stern notices and eventually cut off service.
WorldCom will let spammers get away with spamming several times before actually doing anything about it.
Paging SPEWS. SPEWS to the white courtesy phone, please...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
With 605.6 millions of internet users, worldwide (according to kadius) 1-2 one-thousandths of a percent that's still 6056 replies to spam. With that many replies and close to zero cost one could make a decent business... sadly
40% of each sale of one product: anti-spam software
Geez. This is like sending out virus attachments to people in hopes of getting them to buy your anti-virus software.
Since the early days of my experiences on the 'net, spam has been a problem (1994 is when I first hopped on). Why is this? Obviously, as indicated in the article, spam does indeed make money. Sure, you may get one percent response, but if it only costs a couple hundred $ to send half a million e-mails, at one percent that's 5,000 people replying! Of course we know they're all real net newbies or suckers, but as with anything else, it's 'buyer beware'. In short, people spam because it does indeed work.
Ms. Betterly says she refuses to send e-mails about adult fare, because it "disgraces society."
/dev/null.
Yeah whatever - spammers claiming moral superiority over pornographers. What's next, the RIAA claiming it supports artists?
Thankfullly, Spamassassin means I don't have to deal with her garbage. Unfortunately it just hides the problem, but at least I get the satisfaction of a "fuck you" when it redirects to
If you've got an unfortunate friend stuck in Outlook, Cloudmark does a decent job of cleaning up the mess, and Mozilla's soon-to-be turned on anti-spam features are looking nice.
Too bad see doesn't have a web site so she can experience the /. effect!
Here is her website:
http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com
And her email:
laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
You may fire when ready.
The statement contains no non-subjective, non-conditional objective statements, and therefore can't be "proven" wrong.
I don't like spam, but neither do I hate it. It is no more "evil" or indicative of lack of values than commercials. If you're a mother and have found a way to make a living that let's you stay at home and provide a quality, loving and supportive atmosphere for your kids, that's great. You might not have the most noble job in the world, but then, neither do I right now.
This lady's made a trade off, which is a necessary consequence of living in the real world, and it looks like a pretty good one to me. If spam is terrible, then get a spam filter. or lobby your representatives to outlaw it.
She looks like she has a fairly mature, well thought out, and open understanding of what it is she does.
$250 for 500k emails? This morning I was reading about a guy who is selling a million for 20 bucks.
Fun quote:
"I hate spam," he [the spammer, "Steve"] says. "I've gotten death threats. People have threatened to kill my dog. . . . But when you make a thousand bucks in one day, you could care less."
<sarcasm>Hard to argue with that!</sarcasm>
With only 65 people filling out a survey to enter a contest, that's not a unreasonably bad chance of winning. Of course, that's assuming the prizes are bone fide...
A quick search on Switchboard shows that she is listed, please everybody call her with your beliefs on spam:
Laura Betterly
717 Weathersfield Dr
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
(727)733-5335
Good gawd...
No wonder she chose an 'occupation' that doesn't require interaction with others. She looks like a smacked ass!
Blah. It's even a Photoshop filtered black & white picture, which is usually done to make someone look good. They had to do it to her just to upgrade her face to hideous.
I always figured spammers were ugly.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
That post had nothing to do with the parent. You neither remarked on a fantastic 1000th post, nor helped me with daddy's secret. You, sir, are OFFTOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With her name and a complaint that she sent us spam, whether she did or not. Let's see how quickly she finds herself permanently without an ISP. :)
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
...of the wondrous contributions to our great country that come out of Florida.
It would've been nice if they had published her own personal email address. Then all us slashdotters could continue to mail her crap every day until she 'opts out' by replying to each one. How many readers does Slashdot get again? ;-)
They'd have to get an awful lot of buys to make back their costs.
I'd wholeheartedly support a 1 cent/email fee to be imposed across the board, by law, everywhere. Would you?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Spam is theft, plain and simple. Spammers need to be punished.
You know who else needs to be punished? Mainline companies like Symantec who hire obvious fly-by-night spammers to slosh crap ads for Noron SystemWorks all over email, and then deny that Norton has anything to do with it.
About twice a week for the last 6 or 8 months I get the same ad from some theiving yellowbellies. I used to send the ads to piracy@symantec.com. After 10 increasingly strident emails, the neanderthal Symantec hired to insult people who write to piracy@symantec.com finally wrote me back, using both fingers, only to deny the obvious connections between Symantec and the spammers. Hey, unibrow! Do you think I was born yesterday?
I have sworn NEVER to buy a Symantec product because of this spamming.
Well, I also use Linux and NetBSD so it's very unlikely I will ever need Symantec's to fix up a crap Windows installation, but still, I've taken the oath.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Tip for the Anonymous Cow^H^H^HMORON:
Disabling WMC closes down all of 1/65536th of your system. A firewall (or a router) gives you next to no worries.
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
We know:
Her name: Laura Betterly
Her kids names: Chris, 10, and Craig, 11
The city she lives in: DUNEDIN, Fla
What her house is like: 5,000-square-foot home, with a pool
And it even had a picture of her.
A quick Google turns up:
Betterly, Laura
717 Weathersfield Dr.
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
United States
(1) 727-447-2037
(1) 727-468-2037
-----------
How about someone in Florida drive over there and tell her that the other 99.999% of her email recipients are wishing her bodily harm, and also that they know where she lives.
Hell, why don't we all call her?
`Lex - Find Me Here: Text Appeal
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
...who actually reads the emails ? Even if I was so oblivious that I didn't filter my emails, I would never dream of supporting the spammer. Even if I accidently read a spam and then amazingly found the product/service interesting, I would not respond to anything in the spam.
> He also hunts for new ways to get around
> software that tries to filter out spam and to
> get people to open his e-mails.
With a response rate as low as 0.002%, do they expect that the people that install and run spam filters are the most likely to respond to spam ?
It's depressing to see how irresponsible the ISPs are, letting them off the hook so easily. They owe it to their customers to shut down the spammers, not just warn them if they get many complaints.
Like the "spam queen" said, It's a numbers game. If people bothered complaining, they'd really feel what people think about them.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
I find this odd, because people regularly LOOK and actively search for porn. But almost noone does the same for spam. It's like saying a rude door to door salesman is better than a strip club, even though the strip club doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to be affected.
"I don't understand why prostitution is illegal. If some girl really needs $5 and some guy really needs a squib job, it sounds like a match made in heaven!" --Random standup comic quote.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
The article showed a pie chart detailing the things spam was selling, and it only indicated "scams" as being 4%.
I'd have to say that only 4% of the spam I get (when I review my spamassassin mailbox for false positives..) to be anything approaching legitimate products and services.
Almost all of it is for penis enhancers (surely fraudulent), fake viagra (ditto), stock schemes (pump 'n' dumps), "financial offers" which are surely either pump-n-dumps or deals so loaded with fees they stretch the definition of legitimate, bogus health products (HGH and the like), and porn, which is far higher than the 12% indicated.
Since this is the WSJ we're talking about, I wonder if this isn't some editorial attempt to de-marginalize spammers and the borderline legal crap they push, with the goal of ultimately softening the opposition so that the big-name direct marketers can start in on this too. Claiming only 4% fraudulent content is stretching the imagination pretty thin.
Anybody got an email address for this lady? Maybe she would like to be on a few mailing lists herself...
Two Hundred Thousand a year????
Good god, am I in the wrong job? I'm only a semi-moral person after all...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Perhaps, just perhaps next time you will manage to do something that isnt a FAILURE! YOU FAIL IT!
Ya and you don't need to use contraception when having sex.
The article portrays her as an ethical businesswoman who lets recipients opt out of mailings and only sends to people who have at one time indicated a desire to receive offers. If that's accurate, it can't be typical....being in the spam industry is like being in porn: you've already given up; why bother with standards of conduct? I'm convinced that asking to be removed just tells them there's a live person on the other end of an address.
C'mon, we can't be hypocritical here. You can't call someone up in the middle of the night unless you have an existing business relationship with them.
That's right, no calls unless you've been the recipient of her SPAM.
[Checking inbox... "You Have 362 Unread Messages"]
Well, guess that's taken care of... What was Ms. Betterly's phone number again?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
In her mind, her time with her children is important, your time, and my time, weeding through UCE is not important.
In her mind, she's a moral and ethical person.
She's not out of her mind; she's just buried too deeply in it.
P.S.:And I am Marie of Roumania.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
http://www.wordsinarow.com/email_lists.html
mailto:laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
I'm sure that phone number will be disconnected by the end of the day....
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Money made.
But, being a spammer, she may have someone strip their cars while the door is bolted to keep them inside.
Fight Spammers!
...she went to work as an organizer of music events and corporate parties after her divorce in 2000.... can you IMAGINE anyone divorcing this sweet, beautiful, conscientious, hard-working woman? that guy must be CRAZY!
as much as we are all enraged at spammers that SPAM is in fact a tasty treat.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Who can say why he divorced her, but it doesn't appear to be because he has a visceral loathing of spam.
"A friend in Tampa along with her ex-husband keep the company's computers and servers running."
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Wise99/42_United_ States2.txt
:)
Betterly, Laura
717 Weathersfield Dr.
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
United States
(1) 727-447-2037
(1) 727-468-2037
I personally intend to sell her an Anti-Anti-Spam tool to filter out Anti-Spam mail.
Why stick up for big business?
Data Resource Consulting contact info.
Ms. Betterly says she refuses to send e-mails about adult fare, because it "disgraces society." She won't take jobs from clients selling products she doesn't think are legitimate. And she only sends bulk e-mails to people who have indicated at some time that they want to hear more about certain products or offers.
So, in short, she's not a "real" spammer at all.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Does anyone think that, eventually, this problem might take care of itself? I was just thinking that I don't know anyone who actually reads their spam, and I would guess that an inclination to do so would only be due to an unfamiliarity with spam and the internet in general. I think that as more and more people are raised with internet access as the norm, the general populace will come to realize the worthlessness of spam and that response rates will drop and deprive most spammers of a viable business model. But that's just my $0.02
That having been said, there will always be suckers with small penises who need to make $5000 a week at home, and there will always be people who take advantage of that.
or, for those out there feeling a bit aggressive, since /.'ers have taken their time to dig up personal information concerning this 'queen' - including her very own e-mail address, why not simply subscribe that e-mail address to all possible (and impossible if you're in for a challenge) spam-lists you might have heard of, been spammed by or simply dreamed of (what do I know?)
just a thought
- think much, write little, speak less -
"I'm just trying to make a living like everyone else," says Ms. Betterly.
How about this
He (Mr. Connell) also hunts for new ways to get around software that tries to filter out spam and to get people to open his e-mails. He labors over a message's subject line; he's found people are more likely to open e-mail if it appears to be from a real person, so he types his friends' names on "from" lines. "The trick is to make it look personal," he said as he tapped out commands on his computer. "You want to make it look like it comes from the guy in the cubicle down the hall."
WTF. These asshole spammers just don't get it ! The spammed e-mail recipients go through the trouble to filter the bullshit out and are not interested. I had to change e-mail addresses several times because of these assholes. I setup an address that is only given to friends and family members and I get fsking spammed. I have one address that is used for domain registrations only and I get 100 commercial messages a day. That address is useless now. Pain in the ass and a waste of time looking for messages related to my domain.
While bitching about spam, there is junk mail. I get 5 credit offers a day in the US Mail. I have a shredder but these credit card vultures make the envelopes thick enough that I can't shove the damn thing through. I have to waste time opening the envelope and finding the application that needs to be shredded. Some days are bad to where I spend 20 minutes just going junk mail.
She might be making $200,000 now, but in a few years when SPAM laws get tighter (and they definitely will), she'll have to move back into the trailer park, and I'll enjoy seeing that. Spam can never be justified for being "right", when it costs some companies so much money in increased time and bandwidth costs.
Laura Betterly
717 Weathersfield Dr
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
(727)733-5335
How nice that the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office let's you do on-line searches. The information for her address is available on-line.
Includes:
Enjoy!
Notice how these spammers never say how much money they make, only how much they expect to make. There's a big difference.
While Betterly is one of the "lesser" spammers, the problem is that in this day in age, people are AFRAID to use opt-out/unsubscribe instructions.
Why?
Because using such instructions is the #1 way to get your email address propagated to more spammers. Anyone who knows anything about dealing with spam is that the #1 rule is not to do ANYTHING that could be used to validate your address. The only response to a spam that won't do more harm than good is a "User unavailable" or other similar delivery failure bounce message. Maybe Betterly actually removes people who wish to opt-out, but most spammers don't, and that's why all of this opt-in and opt-out bullshit will never work.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
That's what his parents (who are also his uncle and his aunt) thought.
Well, daytime here. In Europe. No sense in being impolite or immoral with such an outstanding figure in her community.
Funny, since the parent to this message was posted, the number is always engaged. We've slashdotted her phone. Awwwww.
Maybe someone could get her cell phone number as well (a quick search turned up nothing), as americans get charged for incoming cell phone calls.
the AC
[Any Aussies want to pick up the relay?]
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Isn't it ironic that her own success at being able to annoy tens of millions of people will probably a major factor in the death of internet as we know it. The isps, especially the cable isps, are beginning to force their own content and restrict the use of their services. Wasn't the internet supposed to be a user oriented environment? It is probably the last place on earth where the customer is always right. This woman through her greed is helping to kill it.
Now if the Wall Street Journal wants to do a story on a truly profitable small/medium business venture on the internet I suggest they look at some porn sites because they are more likely to make a profit than any other web business. Lets see how sympathetic the WSJ can be towards them.
One good tidbit of info, ISP's apparently do respond when spam complaints are made, so I urge everyone to take a little time and report spammers to their isp so they can get booted. Plus it is the only reliable way to get removed from the list.
Anyone know any local gov't officials? ;)
I recently received some spam whose subject line contained just the name of my 4 month old nephew. It is not a common name either.
It seems unlikely they could send spam that was addressed only to me, with a name I had mentioned in several previous emails without some sort of email scanning.
Has any one else had this ?
Will
per mere, per terras
Laura Betterly's home address and phone number:
Betterly, Laura
717 Weathersfield Dr
Dunedin, FL 34698
727-733-5335
Fsck you very much, Laura, for the spam.
Sit back and relax as Windows 98 installs on your computer.
Last time I commented on this, I got accused by some idiot of being a troll. Interestingly enough it was still modded to 5 and considered "Insightful".
The biggest problem with spam is ... the response rates. That is users who actually are dumb enough to open up the email and then reply to it.
If everyone in the whole world suddenly got a clue (and it won't happen) then the response rate for junk emails would be nothing, nada, zip, 0 people and 0%.
Exactly how long would a spamming organisation be able to stay in business if they couldn't even guarantee that in a 6 million mailout, they could not get one sale?
With a response rate as low as 0.002%, do they expect that the people that install and run spam filters are the most likely to respond to spam ?
No, because if you've installed it yourself you're too tech savvy and very very unlikely to buy anything from them. They're gunning for the uneducated masses. Those that do reply.
A 0.002% response rate for 3 million emails is 6 thousand responses. Despite the low percentage, that bold figure is enough for many unscrupulus companies to go "hell yeah!".
Email spamming is quick, cheap and it's easy. So quick, so cheap and so easy that it's seen as worthwhile even if you only get 50 responses. Until that number drops to 1 or 2 then we'll all have to look at other ways of stopping the menace.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
That was the most negative interpretation of anything I've ever seen. The ISPs are not on the spammers side and they're doing everything in their legal might to prevent them from doing business. Maybe you should try to lighten up a bit?
It's a joke!
I'm sure she has a legitimate fax number that can accept requests for unsubscribe, being such a fine character.
Why the hell not? Come on... restore my faith in the /. effect, someone!!!
her email...laura@dataresourceconsulting.com.....
I'm simply going to save all the spam i get this week from ALL my email accounts ( 400-600) and then forward every single piece of mail to her... If we all did that..hmm....hows she like it?
She doesn't forge or falsify the message headers;
But at the far end of the article we read about her computer guy:
Ok, so isn't the "from" line in in some narrow, literal, technical sense, part of the message header? --Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Only he himself can. But I'm just hoping he did it for the better reason :)
VKh
Yeah, or maybe like... uhmm... sending spam to people about spam removal software? I fail to see how your analogy helps to enlighten anyone about anything.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Steal their databases.
I can only imagine the kind of horror they might feel at getting hacked and finding somone had DL'd their precious list of names.
It's sad enough that they have to promote antispam software by the means of spam, but for someone to actually buy it? I mean, who would take the time to read spam in order to stop spam?
Well, at least Ms. Betterly is a "better" person. I am glad to hear that.
Much ado about nothing, anyone? Seems like a lot of damage just to gain $1,555 (ok, I'm a student and $1,555 is a lot of money, but STILL!)
If you're using the Razor you can change your mail filters file to do this. Make sure you bounce the messages as opposed to forwarding them, that way she can't block the addresses, bouncing also doesn't leave a record of where it came from afaik.
I dunno, if only 20 of us did this, that's 20x the normal amount of spam she's receiving. It'd be hard to find the genuine mail amongst all that. I think she'd get the message.
lose your last meal
kill your sex drive for at least a week
cause you to violate several local pr0n ordnances
disturb your sleep for a long time to come
the AC
Don't say I didn't warn you
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Colombian drug lords make a living by selling a real product to a customer. It is very unfair of you to insult them by equating them with parasites like Ms Betterly.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
From the article:
... Or we'll say 'stop' again!
"WorldCom says that if problems with a spammer persist, the company will send increasingly stern notices and eventually cut off service."
Stop!
My
Limekiller
Perhaps I should try again in about 5 seconds by clicking on http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com, and, if it still doesn't work, perhaps keep clicking on http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com until the page eventually loads, if it ever does.
I suppose the hosts of http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com don't have enough bandwidth to accomodate for all that unwanted traffic. Oh well, they are a profitable company, so no doubt they will invest in a better connection so that I will one day be able to view http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com.
... can we get her email address(es) so we can start signing HER up for a boatload of spam? I'd personally like to sign her up for junkamil from Custom Offers..
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
You can sell your body or dope and probably make much more. Then again, some people have morals...
-- Leeeter than leet
Spam wastes resources just like a virus. As far as I'm concerned spam *is* a virus and should be considered as such. E-mail software is most accessible virus creation tool there is.
-- Boycott Shell
sunbiz.org file for her company. As someone mentioned she's doing biz at home, there seems no problem with this, check here. At least she tries to work legal, however...
Your post was bad form... BAD FORM!
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
From the article:
Ms. Betterly says she follows a lot of the rules laid out by most of the state laws: She doesn't forge or falsify the message headers; she doesn't use a third-party company's Internet address or domain name unknowingly
From the PC in his tidy two-bedroom Tampa apartment, Chris Connell, the company's computer expert, recently launched a large, promising campaign for Ms. Betterly.
He [Chris Connell] labors over a message's subject line; he's found people are more likely to open e-mail if it appears to be from a real person, so he types his friends' names on "from" lines.
So she claims that she doesn't 'forge or falsify' headers, but her employee uses other peoples names in the 'from' header field. That looks very much like falsifying headers (& therefor illegal) to me.
HH
She's a Witch! She's a Witch! Burn Her! Burn Her!
I have seen posts already showing her phone and hime information. I propose that for each email that we receive we give LAura a call thanking her for her email and kindly suggesting that she stop sending her spam.
Of course this brings out the issue of how far you can bring this
one place that I have found (that some spammers belong to) is "http://www.the-dma.org" this is Direct Marketing Association they may help in stopping some spammers
*(although I am not a legal expert... I beleive that in case any courts get involved you can inform them that you are simply completing the communication that she has initated)
- WorldCom lets spammers get away with 'first offence'.
- WorldCom helps spammers listwash.
- WorldCom will let spammers get away with spamming several times before actually doing anything about it.
Are you people never satisifed? Do you want the FBI raiding at the FIRST sign of trouble, or do you want to follow proper channels?Such an informative post. Where did that customers email address come from? How is Mr. Connell to REALLY know if that person merely clicked-through an agreement (Without reading it) that their email would be shared? Did that person then attempt to use anything posted within the email to remove his/herself from that list?
"And she only sends bulk e-mails to people who have indicated at some time that they want to hear more about certain products or offers. People do that, some unwittingly, when they sign up for free e-mail accounts or create chat-room identities or buy products online. Many Web sites ask users whether they are interested in receiving marketing offers and ask them to check -- or, more likely, uncheck -- an obscure little box if they don't want to receive that kind of e-mail."
So people, in this case, are not paying attention. Strangely, that's also why there's such hubub about cars and cell-phone use.
"He flagged the name of the offended e-mail recipient on Ms. Betterly's list so that person wouldn't be contacted again."
So wait a second, because some places don't abide by their privacy agreements, or don't remove people when requested, then EVEYRONE is bad?
I suppose, then, I should be in prison, because I've circumvented copy protection using a No-CD crack so my kids don't have to touch CD's.
Obviously, you belive that if SOMEONE is doing something illegal in a certain area (hacking government systems), then EVERYONE must be doing that. I guess we shouldn't have access to source code either. Who KNOWS what we could do with that!
Please. Tell us. Some of us want to know which side of the double standard you really stand at.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Ok, so maybe what she is doing is not illegal in Florida. But having a head that ugly should be.
"He labors over a message's subject line; he's found people are more likely to open e-mail if it appears to be from a real person, so he types his friends' names on "from" lines. "The trick is to make it look personal," he said as he tapped out commands on his computer. "You want to make it look like it comes from the guy in the cubicle down the hall."
They must be very lucky to be friends with this nice guy. I bet they get all kinds of exotic offers like "sleeping with the fishes" and stuff.
Or prefer them to spammers... I know I do.
I disagree. Neither is more or less evil than the other. Both are equally evil.
Advertising, in any form, is an expense. Prices of products are, to a certain extent, determined by the cost of producing and selling the product.
So let's take a look at things from a slightly different perspective. I am in the market for a new car. I have done a great deal research to determine the best vehicle to suit my needs. The manufacturer has decided to the best place to advertise their vehicle is during the baseball season. A television network has contracted with MLB to obtain the broadcasting rights and will charge advertisers a rate that will cover their costs and turn a profit. The vehicle manufacturer has to charge more for the vehicle because their expenses are higher. Guess who gets stuck with the bill?
I guess you call this a general rant against advertising in any form. Whether you pay higher costs for connectivity/inbox space or in final cost of a product, it really doesn't matter. In the end, it just plain costs more.
If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
Personally, this lady kind of disgusts me. Just in case you're interested, it appears her home phone number is listed on people.yahoo.com in Dunedin, FL. Maybe we should all give her a call and let her know what we think of her.
40% of each sale of one product: anti-spam software
She event admits to it. I know it's a stretch, but it's akin to paying a gang for protection.
Madness is only a state of mind
This woman is promoting the same behavior as the Enrons of the world. Calling her a terrorist may be harsh, but it's the way I see it.
The spammers problem isn't getting around filters that people install themselves, but getting past filters that ISPs or sysadmins might install to reduce wasted traffic.
And I don't have a transparent proxy cache to do it for me. What's going on?
I have always said that Slashdot is cyberspace's Mos Eisley Cantina. This is a new low for us! Loving it!
I think we should all spam her inbox! Please post her email so that it can be bombed....err spammed rather. After all, she thinks that it is perfectly legal.
Thanks in advance.
If there were micropayments it would be nice to have an automated sytem where you could just charge people for the favour of reading their emails ...
If they do not pay a fee while sending the mail it goes in the spam bin and they get a message with your fees. Acquintances who have previously send you mail automatically get their fee returned, anyone sending you spam can kiss his fee goodbye. Mail from mailing lists gets a free pass based on a source filter, so that is no problem either.
This might work although it would take a lot of evangelizing and code for automation on the client side to get it off the ground (it could work without automation for people who want to use legacy clients, but the sender would have to perform the payment via the web and include a transaction number in the email). The biggest problem is that we still dont have micropayments after all these fucking years.
Spamming or Slashdotting her is just as bad a crime as her spamming us. If you do send her Spam, or you do try to participate in trying to DOS her, then you have no right complaining about the Spam in the first place.
And yet, because of that advertising, you might be made aware of a product, or a feature of a product that you don't know about.
While you may not like some of the advertising, you've got to admit that companies do not spend money unless there is a return (or the chance for a return) for that investment.
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
I know this will not work very well for the spammers who forge their return e-mail addy, but.... Is it possible to make a list of spam messages and spammers and send a professional letter to the ISP saying that one of their user sent X number of messages in the last week (possibly attach the message as well)?
If an ISP gets one complaint from a user - that's one thing. If the ISP gets a messge saying that 23,000 spam messages were sent out in the last week by one of their customers - that's another.
Just sent an email to the "good" folks at http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com, asking them to remove all my details from their database.
Does this mean that I ave not solicited any of their spam, and what recourse does that give me if i get any more from them?
pete@mediumart.co.uk (don't you dare DRC...)
First I bought my own domain name. This allows me to enable new email addresses at any point. I have an unlimited supply. I can create a new email address for anything that I want. Anytime I buy something, I enable an email address with some number and the name of the company in it. Anytime I post to usenet or ask somebody for help from somebody I create a new email address for that purpose. I give all my friends a private email address and ask them to be careful with it.
This means that I can also disable email addresses. I send an autoreponse to any disabled email address saying, "You attempted to send deadsea email, but you used an address that gets too much spam". I then can give them a URL for a contact form if they really need to contact me.
The contact form is the best part though. If you go to my website, the contact form lets you send me email but never reveals my address. It uses an alias system. That means that my addresses won't be harvested to begin with. I made the contact form available under the GPL so you can use it too.
So people can email me, but if I start getting spammed, I can disable an address and people can still contact me. Sure its a pain to have to use the contact form, but it doesn't happen that often. When it does happen, I reply with an email address that can actually be used to contact me.
Fugly
It looks like Mrs. Betterly is doing better than most I know. Maybe we should all become mass mailers just like how most people joined the tech sector for more money. That will flood the market and saturate it, hopefully?
I'll dispute that - companies often spend (sometimes amazingly huge) amounts of money on advertising because of groupthink - they all learned exactly the same thing in buisness school, and advertising costs are often NOT looked at for any strict return on investment.
Let's get the biggest /. effect of all time going, people... I want her server to overload to the point that it catches fire and burns here nice 6 bedroom spam mansion to the dirt....
http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com/
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
One of the most damning comments in the article seems to have been overlooked.
"Two days later, 275 messages were opened (out of a half million, remember) and 65 surveys completed...." (paraphrased). Gee, how the hell did she know how many messages had been read?
Maybe she's just counting the number of hits on a specific image on her server... but it seems much more likely that she's using a mailbug. If only 275 people, out of 500,000, even opened the message then these are the morons you want to include in all future mailings.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
So whom do we complain to?
Laura Betterly
Or
Steve E Blom?
contacts via Opt-In Email List Resources
"So you've decided to be evil" is a humourous website, and in light of this spam Queen story, I thought that you may want some background information on the most hideous of evil occupations. :)
If everyone would send a simple postcard to this adress it would help end spam ( need i say that adding your return address might be bad)
Attention: Stop the spam
Address
717 WEATHERSFIELD DRIVE
DUNEDIN FL 34698
this is the address of LAURA A BETTERLY according to public records.
As for your illegal use of CDs, that's your lookout - you have chosen to put your family at legal risk just to save a couple of bucks on CDs. Or maybe you are taking a moral stand, but you are still choosing to take a risk. Mayhap that's an OK risk for you, but it's still there, don't pretend you aren't breaking a law for your own convenience.
As for the spammers, I have NEVER EVER EVER given "opt-in" permission on my tech contact Email to any business. It was stolen from the Internic "whois" database over ten years ago, and now receives thousands of spams (ironically, I maintain that address as a spam trap now to help me keep a strong access.db) from hundreds of spammers, all of whom make exactly the same claims as Betterly.
It should be obvious that with individuals rapidly and constantly trading lists of as many as 60 million addresses, it is effectively impossible to get "opted out" permanently once one is on such a list. It is equally obvious that there is tremendous financial incentive to create lists without any regard for the wishes of those on the lists, and to represent those lists as "opt-in" when trading with other spammers.
At least you are consistent; you, an admitted scofflaw, are defending other scofflaws. Kudos to you for that, I respect a consistent code of ethics.
It's true that advertising automatically makes the advertized products more expensive, but at the same time it can make other things cheaper (sporting events, television channels, newspapers, magazines, ...). So with classic advertising, there's also always a positive aspect (whether or not it's worth it, is another question), which you don't have with spam (the only one that gets better from it the spammer and possibly the seller).
Donate free food here
I am not sure about ROI, I do know things cost more because of advertising. There are other sources of product information not funded by the manufacturer. There are MANY sources of information that I will gladly pay for that provide much more valuable information relating to a product/service.
To repeat myself, all advertising is evil whether it is spam, television commercials, billboards whatever.
If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
Hi, any serial killers out there? How would one of you like to take up killing spammers!?
You've already got the name and address of one, and she probably knows others...
Do some 'poetic justice' to her, like cramming feces down her throat, or maybe amputate her tounge.
There's only one "Betterly" listed in Dunedin Fl. and the first name is Laura??? We now have her address and phone number.... Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
Time to spam back the spanner???
You stop right now, or we'll issue an ultimatum!
Anyone got a mirror up yet?
If I was charged for the mails send by these mailing lists, I'd probably have to close them down. Or rather, the nice site hosting the lists would probably stop that service.
Not only do they provide the name, city, and state but also a picture! That should make the "cleanup" team's job a lot easier!
Nice to know that not only can I avoid looking at the spam, I can flat out refuse to accept it when it comes in! Mind you, it does save it to let me look at it before I /dev/null it, but gives me much more satisfaction than just dropping it in a different folder.
I believe personally that the bell is tolling for spam and here's why: Most of the people responding are senior citizens. I visit an older widow from time to time who just loves the Internet. She's always calling the numbers or responding to the emails. I tell her that she shouldn't do that but she always says "But that man was just so nice ... ". They are so trusting, I guess 50 years ago you didn't have a reason not to trust people.
That said, people from that generation are steadly leaving us. As older generations are more and more tech saavy and younger ones are taught to know better in the first place then we should see a significant decline in Spam as it should become less and less profitable.
Then again as the saying goes "There's a sucker born every minute"
The Anti-Blog
No, ISPs should NOT be blocking ANY ports. I pay them for a connection. Perhaps email, news, etc. Securing my machine is my responsibility. If there is a machine on their net causing a problem, then yes, they should kill THAT machine's connection. Filtering anything is not the right thing for them to be doing.
You pay for a connection, but the ISP owns the infrastructure, and it's their network you are connecting to. While it would be nice if they did not block any ports, they have every right to do so on their own network. If you don't like that, you are always free to take your business elsewhere.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Tell her to go back to direct mailing. Then, at least she pays for the postage, the printing costs, and all that other stuff, instead of making me pay for the bandwidth to download crap she generates, the time it takes to set up yet another spam filter on my e-mail addresses, and the storage space the message will inevitably take up before I send it to digital oblivion. I mean, at least junk mail you can just toss in the recycle bin and it doesn't really cost you anything.
Oh, yeah, and leave your real address out of the letter. No sense in making her life easier. That's also the reason not to phone her or e-mail her. If I worked in a seamy business like that, I'd have Caller ID. And if I worked in a seamy business like that, I'd be precisely unscrupulous enough to take the e-mail addresses out of the barrage of complaints and add them to my database.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Well, this will be the most unpopular message in the thread, but this woman is not a spammer. People have signed up to receive email, she sends them email. They request to be taken off the list, she takes them off. She doesn't forge headers, use open relays, or advertise for fake products. Where exactly is she wrong here? If you sign up to receive email, you should expect to receive email. These people requested to be put on the list (if they aren't smart enough to uncheck the "send me additional email" box it's their own fault), and they can get taken off her list by faollowing the instructions in the email. Sorry, nothing she is doing is wrong.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
um...er....0.002% of 3 million is 60, not 6 thousand (0.002% x 3million = 0.00002 x 3million).
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
For what it's worth, No-CD cracks are not illegal, although you may be liable for civil penalties for using them.
Posting the names of the kids? You're an ass. They've done nothing other than being born to idiotic parentage, and now do you know how many times they'll get beaten up and have their lunch money stolen?
Little Johnny: My dad said your mom is a filthy spammer
Craig: Is not!!!!
Johnny: Is too, give me your lunch money or I'll beatchya!
Is it just me or do you see a really bad idea in sending e-mail to her address? All that is going to do is let her know she has a good address in you and thus update her database that your address is good and working thus making you get more spam than you already are getting.
Visit a spammer's website and gather some contact information, then fire off an email. Don't be shy about including your phone number, suggesting you might be interested in mass mailing.
A couple minutes with pen and paper and you can probably come up with enough questions to keep them busy for an hour, asking about the effectiveness of their marketing technique, options, haggling on payment, so on and so on. If this type thinks there's any chance of completing the transaction, they will stay on the line for a long time. Never tell them off, leave them constantly wondering if you're another perspective client.
It's not dull. You learn quite a few things about the type of person who will do something like this. It's an insight into a pretty twisted world, and it's several million spams they won't get out.
Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
Something to pee into, as in public jorurnal.
"A 0.002% response rate for 3 million emails is 6 thousand responses."
/dev/null.
I wonder how many of those email addresses are spam catcher emails like spam@my-domain.com or what I do put an s- infront of my address and filter all those to
-- Andy
For Bulk E-Mailer, Pestering
Millions Offers Path to Profit
By MYLENE MANGALINDAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
DUNEDIN, Fla. -- The sun was setting on Laura Betterly's six-bedroom house as she reviewed a pair of outgoing e-mail messages one last time. Satisfied, she moved her cursor to the "send" icon and clicked.
"It's that simple," Ms. Betterly said triumphantly, swiping her palms. She had just dispatched e-mail messages to 500,000 strangers. Half saw the subject line: "Don't miss your chance to win 2002 Lexus RX300." The other half saw: "Win a trip to Nascar!"
Ms. Betterly's messages joined the roughly two billion other unsolicited commercial e-mails that hit in-boxes around the world every day. The company she runs from her home, Data Resource Consulting Inc., sends out as many as 60 million such messages a month. That puts the 41-year-old single mother in the most hated breed on the Internet. She sends spam.
"I'm just trying to make a living like everyone else," says Ms. Betterly. Her e-mail marketing operation, she says, allows her to raise her children, Chris, 10, and Craig, 11, and to spend quality time with them. "You can call me spam queen, I don't really care. As long as I'm not breaking any laws, you don't have to love me or like what I do for a living."
Bulk e-mailers, as some spammers prefer to be called, are so unpopular that 26 states have banned their messages one way or another. Internet-service providers try to run them off their systems. Technology start-ups with products to filter out spam are attracting lots of venture capital. Consumer groups are pressuring the Federal Trade Commission and Congress to regulate bulk e-mail. Currently, there are no federal laws regarding spam, although the FTC has cracked down on spam that is fraudulent.
There is more of it than ever. Unsolicited messages made up 36% of all e-mail on the Internet in August, up from 8% a year ago, estimates Brightmail, an antispam-software maker whose statistics are often cited by legislators who want to outlaw spam. Antispammers are most outraged by unscrupulous bulk e-mailers who clog in-boxes with promotions for pornography or dubious get-rich-quick schemes and weight-loss plans.
Cottage Industry
While there are large companies that send unsolicited commercial e-mail, most of the hundreds of people who make up the industry are small-business people and entrepreneurs such as Ms. Betterly. A look at Ms. Betterly's business shows why bulk e-mailers, and spam, keep multiplying.
[Laura Betterly]
She and three friends started Data Resource Consulting with $15,000 six months ago. Ms. Betterly quickly discovered that she could make a profit if she got as few as 100 responses for every 10 million messages sent for a client, and she figures her income will be $200,000 this year. She has a flexible schedule that allows her to enjoy her children and the 5,000-square-foot home, with a pool, that she shares with them and a roommate.
She isn't breaking any laws. California, Washington and Virginia are among the states with laws that prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail in some form. Florida, where Ms. Betterly lives, has no such law.
Ms. Betterly says she follows a lot of the rules laid out by most of the state laws: She doesn't forge or falsify the message headers; she doesn't use a third-party company's Internet address or domain name unknowingly; she lets people opt out or unsubscribe to future mailings. Still, she doesn't put a specific label ("ADV" for advertisement) at the beginning of her subject lines, which some state laws require.
Ms. Betterly says she refuses to send e-mails about adult fare, because it "disgraces society." She won't take jobs from clients selling products she doesn't think are legitimate. And she only sends bulk e-mails to people who have indicated at some time that they want to hear more about certain products or offers. People do that, some unwittingly, when they sign up for free e-mail accounts or create chat-room identities or buy products online. Many Web sites ask users whether they are interested in receiving marketing offers and ask them to check -- or, more likely, uncheck -- an obscure little box if they don't want to receive that kind of e-mail.
Not Really Spam
Because Ms. Betterly's e-mails aren't, in the strictest sense, unsolicited, she doesn't consider them spam. So she isn't breaking any rules when she sends hundreds of thousands of messages through, say, WorldCom Inc., one of her many service providers. WorldCom, like most providers, has an antispam policy. "Sending unsolicited mail messages, including, without limitation, commercial advertising and informational announcements, is explicitly prohibited," WorldCom's policy says.
SURVIVING THE FLOOD
[Go to Junk E-Mail Special Report]
Is your junk e-mail out of control? If so, what pitches bother you most? What have you done to stop the flood? See our junk e-mail page, or join a discussion with other readers.
Even though she tries not to e-mail people who have expressly indicated, on one Web site or another, that they don't want unsolicited messages, recipients do often complain. While some unscrupulous spammers ignore people who ask to be removed from a list, Ms. Betterly says she complies if anyone e-mails back an "unsubscribe" command, sends "opt out" instructions or otherwise asks not to receive future messages.
"What we do for a living is not a bad thing. We're not horrible," she says.
The company that hired Ms. Betterly to send the Lexus RX300 and Nascar trip e-mails was wfsDirect Inc. Based in Omaha, Neb., wfsDirect has been selling what it calls "online marketing services" since 1999. The company compiles consumer profiles for other companies that use them for e-mail pitches of their own. It gets information for the profiles by sponsoring e-mail sweepstakes for big prizes. To be eligible for the prize, an e-mail recipient goes to a wfsDirect Web site to fill out a survey that asks for the person's name, address, income and other personal details.
In other words, this round of spam was a fishing expedition designed to catch names for future rounds of spam.
Ms. Betterly was hired to send out the 500,000 messages, which wfsDirect composed. She negotiated a commission of 75 cents for every completed survey returned and 10 cents for every incomplete survey.
The Lexus and Nascar messages went to mail-server computers in Berkeley, Calif., that spent two hours shooting them around the U.S. Two days later, 275 people had opened the messages. Only 65 completed the surveys, generating just $40 for Ms. Betterly, who says her costs for sending out the messages totaled $250.
'Horrible' Rate
The response rate of 0.013% was "horrible," Ms. Betterly says. A great response rate for Ms. Betterly would be a disaster for a paper-junk mailer, which expects a typical response of about 2%. Depending on what she's pitching, Ms. Betterly says she can break even at a rate as low as 0.001%. It all depends on the commission she negotiates, and she's considering a few jobs that could pay off particularly well: $35 on each sale of a 3D-glasses package; $50 for a mortgage lead; $85 for a cellphone sale.
[chart]
Ms. Betterly's database is her most precious asset. She bought and bartered its 100 million e-mail addresses from dozens of places, including companies such as Excite (excite.com), About.com (about.com) and Ms. Cleo's psychic Web site. She can fine-tune e-mail runs, hitting just small-business owners, say, or only golfers or music fans. She can cull out certain addresses, to narrow her geographic target. Like most spammers, she also makes money selling her list to other bulk e-mailers, and she keeps adding to her own list.
In August, she heard through a contact at a technology firm about the kind of high-quality list spammers dream of: A database of 16 million addresses, gathered legitimately and held by a high-tech company that she won't name. It had been used successfully before, she knew, to send out newsletters. But she couldn't afford the price: $200,000. Working her contacts, she found someone with an equally attractive list and brokered a trade between the two lists' owners. They paid her by letting her keep both lists.
Ms. Betterly recognized the importance of databases when she went to work as an organizer of music events and corporate parties after her divorce in 2000 and found herself sending bulk e-mail to promote events. As responses poured in, she realized that there might be real money in e-mail marketing if she had a bigger list. "It was like a light," she says. Now, she has one of the biggest lists in the business. "If you have 30 million to 60 million [addresses], you're going to get a certain percentage of [recipients] who think your stuff is cool," she says. "It's a numbers game."
Ms. Betterly, who has an accounting degree from the New York Institute of Technology, says Data Resource Consulting is a profitable concern -- she won't say how profitable -- that pays handsome salaries to its four full-time employees. Her roommate handles administrative tasks and her fiance is chief operations officer. A friend in Tampa along with her ex-husband keep the company's computers and servers running. Ms. Betterly spends most of her time lining up customers, the beauty-cream makers, software houses and e-mail-list compilers that pay her to send e-mails.
From the PC in his tidy two-bedroom Tampa apartment, Chris Connell, the company's computer expert, recently launched a large, promising campaign for Ms. Betterly. "New discovery in spam the easy way!" read the subject line on most of the 15.8 million messages he sent out. They promoted antispam software from Triumvirate Technologies Inc. of Pasadena, Calif. In theory, if enough people bought the software and it worked, Data Resource Consulting could go out of business, but Mr. Connell wasn't worried.
Mr. Connell paced the e-mails -- instructing his computer to send them out in batches of 150 -- to stay under the radar screens of the Internet-service providers he channeled the messages through. It took him more than a week to finish the job.
On the eighth day, his computer beeped. "Ooooh, I got a sale!" he crowed. There were two messages, one from Triumvirate Technologies, telling Mr. Connell that someone read the spam about the antispam software and bought the product for $57. Under the terms of the contract, Ms. Betterly's company will get 40% of that, or $22.80.
But the other message was a complaint from WorldCom. A WorldCom customer had reported an "alleged violation" of the company's policy that prohibits spamming. "We request you take whatever measures you deem appropriate which will ensure no further violation will occur," the e-mail from WorldCom said.
Mr. Connell typed a response: "Problem solved. This guy won't receive anything from us again." He flagged the name of the offended e-mail recipient on Ms. Betterly's list so that person wouldn't be contacted again.
WorldCom says that if problems with a spammer persist, the company will send increasingly stern notices and eventually cut off service.
In Data Resource Consulting's six months in business, Internet providers have halted the company's service three times, making it impossible for the company to send e-mail messages over that Internet channel for as long as 30 days. In each case, the provider said the company's e-mails had generated too many complaints from recipients.
Mr. Connell constantly tinkers with ways to avoid that. He says he has learned to limit the outflow to about one million messages a day and to use multiple Internet services to spread the volume around.
He also hunts for new ways to get around software that tries to filter out spam and to get people to open his e-mails. He labors over a message's subject line; he's found people are more likely to open e-mail if it appears to be from a real person, so he types his friends' names on "from" lines. "The trick is to make it look personal," he said as he tapped out commands on his computer. "You want to make it look like it comes from the guy in the cubicle down the hall."
In the first week of the Triumvirate Technologies campaign, 81 orders came through from 3.5 million messages, a 0.0023% response rate. Still, that generated $1,555 in commissions, and Ms. Betterly was pleased. At that rate, she expected to clear about $25,000 in the end.
Recently Ms. Betterly opened a message from a woman claiming to be the daughter of former Philippines President Joseph Estrada, asking if Ms. Betterly would like to make some money by helping the woman hide $17.3 million in embezzled funds.
That kind of spam "is why what we do has a bad name," Ms. Betterly says. "People actually fall for this stuff."
Out of 500,000 accounts she spammed, "Only 65 completed the surveys, generating just $40 for Ms. Betterly, who says her costs for sending out the messages totaled $250."
In other words, she lost $210 to annoy half a million people she doesn't even know. Suckers are born every day. I'm sure most spammers are losing money in the same way -- but they're too stupid to realize what they're doing.
I pity her children.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
Betterly, Laura
717 Weathersfield Dr.
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
United States
(1) 727-447-2037
(1) 727-468-2037
What I want to know is whether there really was a drawing for the Lexus RX, since 1 in 33 odds isn't bad for a $40-50K SUV. Maybe spam respondents are being rewarded for their part in the bulkmail plague, thus locking in their seat in that special spammer circle of hell.
Of course, that assumes that only half the 65 respondents got the Lexus email AND that the spammers, having sold their humanity anyway, ever intended to have a dedicated drawing (instead of noting in the fine print that the drawing will take place only after all 60 million chances have been claimed).
Actually 3,000000 * 0.002% = 120
3,000000 * 0.2% = 6000
Thus to get 120 sales, that means irritating 3 million people. Fscking evil & horrifying business.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
not the price of manufacture / production
You don't think you get to be the richest person in the world with "cost of production + 10%" do you?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Not everyone benefiting from a spam filter installed it him/herself. Some examples:
Ironically, these spam filters may help the spam response rate. If your mail provider filters for you, you may only get a few spams instead of a ton, and you're less likely to get irritated by them.
A 0.002% response rate for 3 million emails is 6 thousand responses.
:-/ )
0.002% = 0.00002. Forgot to move your percent-to-decimal over. That's 60 replies. (Still, thought...
It's the movement and consumption of money that creates wealth.
The $100 isn't destroyed it's displaced.
Spam creates jobs and your time contributes. You should be pleased that you are helping out just by pressing delete occasionally.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
that sounds just about right to me.
Let them suffer for my hours of lost time,
filtering spam manually and setting up the
automatics.
Spammers are one of the few (if perhaps the only)
people on the earth that I wish bodily harm to,
and I'm as liberal and PC as all get out.
Anyone want to get a rental van and some baseball
bats and go say "hi".
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use LWP;
my $UserAgent =
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020820";
my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new(agent => $UserAgent);
unless (1 == @ARGV) {
die "usage: a.out url\n";
}
my ($url) = @ARGV;
$| = 1;
while (1) {
my $req = HTTP::Request->new('GET', $url);
my $res = $ua->request($req);
if ($res->is_success) {
print ".";
} else {
print "!";
}
}
Right from my Yahoo account, with the header edited to get past the /. "junk characters" filter. (I'll send the full header if anywone is interested)
-----
To: myaddr@yahoo.com
From: FredY9686@earthlink.com
Subject: SpamCop 11078
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002
Errors-To: Dave34_29@ecite.com
Hello Internetizen,
We are SpamCop -- dedicated to the elimination of unsolicited commercial e-mail
(UCE or "SPAM" as it is known.)
Our state-of-the art "Filtration and Heuristic Technology" is so advanced, even
the best Hackers and Crackers in the industry have not yet been able to stop
it. We guarantee that ALL of your e-mail accounts will be free of SPAM. If you
receive even ONE SPAM message, that whole month will be free.
Set-up is US$229 and the monthly subscription is US$79. Please contact
deputies@admin.spamcop.net to learn more.
We accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover, (sorry, no American Express please,)
PayPal and Check-By-Phone.
We very much look forward to serving you.
SpamCop
-----
Anyone seen the new Hormel TV ads? They crack me up every time I see them. But really, who wants more Spam -- whether it be luncheon meatlike substance or UCE?
And who says TiVo users never watch ads?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Naturally the forwarding service will redirect to laura@dataresourceconsulting.com, thus exponentially increasing amount the of spam she receives :)
DOnt kill the poor little doggie. Kill his owner, and then fed him to the dog. Its not the dogs fault. This way, you stop spam, make the dog happy and well fed, and dispose of evidence all in one fell swoop.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Seriously, here's an idea:
This stupid woman gave her real name and the city in which she lives to a national news company... Why doesn't someone rent a van and get a few friends to drive over to her house (where she operates a commercial entity, possibly against zoning regulations) and throw actual SPAM at her house? Maybe find some kids in that neighborhood to make fun of her kids... maybe take all of those AOL cd's we all microwaved and spell out "you = teh sucks" on her lawn.
IANAL, but I play one on
Filtering anything is not the right thing for them to be doing.
While I personally prefer to implement my own firewall, and enjoy the freedom to do more or less what I want, I think it would be better all round if the standard "problem" ports (netbios,http,smtp,dns etc) were blocked by default for all new subscribers to a service, but could be unblocked if the subscriber so requested.
For the vast majority of people, it's in their best interests to block, they likely have no idea what a "port" is, and they'd never need to allow incoming connections anyway - but anyone with a clue, and other requirements could fend for themselves.
I'm all for freedom, but compromised machines, run by clueless idiots on DSL lines are a serious problem these days.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
I get all this shit spam from Korea and I can't
read a single f*cking thing in them. Its really
pissing me off and I have no idea how they even
got my work email since I never use it to sign
up for anything!
This is what you will look like if you spam!!
That should scare some people straight... I hope! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
If you piss off millions of people, they'll probably figure out a way to make you wish you hadn't.
$50 to anyone who goes around to her spam-house and cuts her connection with a pair of pliers.
;-)
$10 bonus for taking a baseball bat to her PC...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
The site lists a 727 area code phone number.n tact.htm
727-733-5335
but you may feel better double-checking the source.
http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com/co
Locals around Clearwater Florica may want to make an inexpensive protest
to this slugs.
Man, that is a crappy web site. But it is aimed at crap customers.
If people just stopped reading spam alltogether it would lose its profix margin and become a bad idea.
Also, that chick is some bitch. "Well I know its unpopular and a waste of money for others, but its not illegal so what are you going todo about it?" attitude is why people hate spammers in the first place!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Basically just sign her up for as much nasty porn spam as you can figure out how to sign her up for.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
So you say, if you have a problem connecting to the network in general or to a specific site, you are not allowed to sniff on your own connection?
"access any * without the knowledge and consent" is all fine and dandy, but "nor use any tools designed to facilitate such access, such as "packet sniffers"" isn't. If I wasn't fairly sure that Rogers is a cable modem firma, I'd lable them criminally stupid instead of merely stupid -- they could easily provide a cable modem that passes on data of its' connection only and prohibit fooling around with that one or using another one.
But not even being allowed to look into ones own connection, because these tools *could* be used to spy on others is stupid -- like saying that you may not use a car, as people have been killed in car accidents. (Instead, the state insists on having a permit and the rules of the road, i.e. "Do not spy on others".)
If I used Rogers, I'd been up the creek more than once because of that.
The right to send spam ends the moment someone sets up the equivelent of a "No Trespassing" sign. To use an analogy, spamming a public, well-known email address is like walking to someone's front door, politely ringing the doorbell, and making a sales pitch to whoever answers the door. However, if the homeowner has set up a No-Trespassing sign, or has bolted his door shut, this does not mean the solicitor can walk around the house and enter through the back door, or crawl through the bedroom window. If the recepient has set up an email-blocking program or has otherwise expressed his desire to not receive solicitations, the spammers have lost their right to spam that person.
Like eagles on pogo-sticks! -- Glottis
If it's a small business with only one employee the zoning laws probably don't apply. Otherwise telecommuting would be largely illegal.
Best Slashdot Co
congrats
Working her contacts, she found someone with an equally attractive list and brokered a trade between the two lists' owners. They paid her by letting her keep both lists.
They are "Trading" lists, but the original author of that list looses out! Just wait till the SIAA hears about this!
Cy.
Does anyone else see the analogy?
I live in a university in a big city, and I have to listen to my friends complain non-stop about the bums that sit outside of 7-11. I told them that if people stopped giving them money, they would be gone tomorrow. Spammers are the same way.
Anyone who posts about bad moderation are themselves off-topic and should be moderated accordingly.
You missed a few.
online@dataresourceconsulting.com
offline@dataresourceconsulting.com
info@dataresourceconsulting.com
steve@dataresourceconsulting.com
Wouldnt you like to get a hold of her database and send her 80 million opt-out messages!!
I've got a little unsolicited message for Ms. Betterly, if that's her real name: FUCK YOU. That is all.
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
giving an interview with your real name and location to a national newspaper does seem a bit foolish, doesn't it?
it is, if you're:
Betterly, Laura
717 Weathersfield Dr
Dunedin, FL 34698
727-733-5335
www.whitepages.com
Let me preface my reply with the fact that I'm not trolling, and I'm not in the business (and I don't send out bulk emails).
I fail to see the real problem people have with spam. It's annoying? So what? Delete it, don't do business with the company if you don't like it.
Try comparing this to bulk mailings:
People need to realize that mass marketing is considered to be a reasonable way to offer your product. People have been doing this for a hundred years. Only the medium has changed. And in comparison to previous mass marketing methods (junk mail, telephone) spam is probably less expensive on society and far easier for you to ignore. Set up some filters and delete whatever gets through. You can't do THAT with junk mail.
Turn it around another way - what if charities could get their message out this way, instead of spending huge dollars on telemarketing?
Ultimately, I don't see what the fuss is. I get junkmail, I throw it in the garbage (except for the unsolicited grocery sale flyers that my wife just 'has to have'.) I get spam, I hit delete. No big deal.
Life Insurance in Canada
If you found yourself on a jury at the trial of someone who had murdering a spammer, would you convict?
- Yes
- No
- Only if Cowboy Neal was the accused
As it happens, I would vote "No".
It appears to cause an occasional false positive, but overall I've found that it deals with "personalized" spam effectively.
They still dont think that they are doing anything wrong even after their ISP's cut their service 3 times? Kinda makes you wonder if they know the difference between right and wrong.
I got the exact same thing yesterday in my school lab. It is not ironic since the act is intentional. It is called targeted advertising.
e s/ popupspam/index.htm
The message is being listed as being sent from 'WEBPOPUP' since that is the name someone used for their system. Most of these diploma traces so far go to ev1.net, though after a lot of complaints they refuse to do anything. Check out a little information concerning this issue here:
http://www.mynetwatchman.com/kb/security/articl
The program being used is called "Direct Advertiser". If you have NetBIOS bound to your interface, someone using net send will, by default, pipe the message over SMB to TCP 139. But if NetBIOS is not bound to the interface, net send will use UDP 135 instead. It takes the "net" command a bit longer to figure this out, but it does work.
The Direct Advertiser product just skips the preliminaries, knowing that smart system administrators close TCP 139, and goes right for the undocumented back door.
The 'Direct Advertiser' web site even tells you how to not receive these kind of things any more.
How to set up your system not to receive netbios messages
To deliver the message our program uses a NetBios call built into the Windows API.
Click Start->Setings -> Control Panel->Administrative Tools->Services
Scroll down and highlight "Messenger"
Right-click the highlighted line and choose Properties.
Click the STOP button.
Select Disable or Manual in the Startup Type scroll bar
Click OK
Windows XP
Click Start->Control Panel
Click Performance and Maintenance
Click Administrative Tools
Double click Services
Scroll down and highlight "Messenger"
Right-click the highlighted line and choose Properties.
Click the STOP button.
Select Disable or Manual in the Startup Type scroll bar
Click OK
Windows 98/ME
Remove or disable the file and printer sharing from your network configuration.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
Commercial speech has absolutely no freedom of speech protection
No. Commercial speech has less protection than non-commercial speech, but it still does have some. IANAL and don't have the case sitations, but there was a case a few years ago where states prohibited advertising of casinos on radio stations from other states that were accessible from that state, and it was shot down by the supreme court as a free-speech violation. Also, years ago Mass. tried to prohibit corporations from making statements against a proposed personal sales tax, also struck down because it prohibited a specific type of speech, even by commercial organizations.
Everyone is railing on her and positing her number etc ..
fx: 360-323-1929
what about the tech guy.
www.dataresourceconsulting.com
Data Resource Consulting
Steve Blom (Steve@dataresourceconsulting.com)
727-773-5335
717 Weathersfield Dr.
Dunedin FL 34698
Name Servers
NS1.NOVASTATE.COM
NS2.NOVASTATE.COM
registration ends on 08/09/2003
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Is there something in the water down there or something?
Well, I could "make a living" selling small boys to pedophiles, or gassing kittens or beating up people on the street for gangsters, but that doesn't make it right.
Does anyone know any email filtering programs usable with mozilla or evolution?
In case anyone is interested, Bettersly's mailing address is 717 Weathersfield Dr., Dunedin FL 34698.
Sorry, but when I do something on Internet, I should only worry about the laws in the place I physically live. Even if I occasionally attend security conferences in other countries. Each of us breaks laws of some corner of the world on regular basis. If I go for a trip in Las Vegas, should I be arrested when returning to CA, where gambling is illegal?
No it isn't. Advertising pays for all free to air television except the BBC. It pays for a lot of very useful web sites. It reduces the price of magazines and newspapers. It pays for expensive sporting and arts events. Effective advertising leads to increased product sales directly benefitting the company's shareholders and sometimes its employees. For certain products such as software the price is related to the number of units sold so effective advertising can lead to cheaper prices for the consumer.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I'm starting to think real hard about Spam. Inspired, much to my chagrin, by the recent articles concerning AOLs CD spamming campaign. I firmly believe when we wipe ourselves from this rock, and our ruined civilization is discovered, that alien archeologists will assume that an AOL CD is a religious artifact. But I keep thinking about this article, trying to determine why am I really angry. Partly, I'm upset because this person is making alot of money while I'm at work. Partly it's jealousy. I'm conflicted, that hell yes, if you can make 200K a year spamming then count me in; and yet, I've been on the net for a while now, before it got really popular, and I also have some of that old code of ethics with me.
But at least I have to hand it to this person, at least she's got some morals, or so she says. And at least Spam is environmentally friendly -- it doesn't affect the groundwater.
And that's a big point. It reminds me that yes, it's upsetting, but at least it's not a lingering mess, environmentally. It's not a SuperFund site.
I'm reminded of mail Air delivery in this country. Airplanes were paid by the pound for mail, so more often than not, they would stuff the US mail bags with rocks to make more money. That's the essence of the point: we realize that there is money to be made in bulk. Pay by the pound, all-you-can-eat, spam-o-rama, and hope that just one sucker is out there.
The other point this article brings to light for me is the fact that, for the most part, we humans are actually brighter than I thought. The spam rate is horrendous. Something like 2 in 10,000. So Spam is casting a very wide net to catch a few sardines. I think that is quite a boost to our combined egos. We aren't as dumb as we behave in traffic.
Finally, in the big picture we burn down trees, combine radical chemical compounds, plaster, market, deluge, impunge the great marketing beast that is America (god bless her) to strain the huddle masses yearning to not have to look at another AOL cd.
So for me, at least until they change the SMTP/POP RFC to allow for end-user authentication, I'm okay with spam, and frankly that scare me.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
> There were two messages, one from Triumvirate
> Technologies, telling Mr. Connell that someone
> read the spam about the antispam software and
> bought the product for $57. Under the terms of
> the contract, Ms. Betterly's company will get
> 40% of that, or $22.80.
Let me get this straight. These people do something unpleasant to you that wastes your time and your resources. Then they ask you to give them some money so that you can stop it from happening again. I'd call this extortion.
M.
Any chance someone could bring her up on a RICO violation?
If they were, then you should also expect them to police your activities. Forget porn, forget warez, forget your MP3s, forget violent multiplayer online games, etc. Forget anything society currently deems questionable.
Do you really want that? Me neither...
An ISP will react to the economics of the situation though. If they get too many complaints, that costs them money. The spammer in question gets whacked for costing the ISP money.
Once spam becomes too expensive to send, it won't be sent. Let's face it though, when the scams are cleaned up (they're already dropping off somewhat I think), spammer reputations will improve. Then spam itself becomes less odious. Complaints will drop. Spam's not going away...
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I run a small religious parody website; needless to say some people on the Internet don't like me.
I have NEVER used my parody website address to signup or opt-in to ANYTHING, yet I'm sure the dozens of people who email me claiming that I have opted in have come from SOMEWHERE.
Unless they require a confirmation email (which most DON'T require), opt-in programs aid and abet any common a**hole who'd like to make your email life less hassle-free.
SUMMARY POINT: Sometimes random people who don't like you opt you in to GIVE you more spam.
Data Resource Consulting, Inc.
o ffline@dataresourceconsulting.comr ceconsulting.com
Main Phone: 727-733-5335
online@dataresourceconsulting.com
info@dataresou
...but one thought I had after reading that article was this: Betterly has clearly put in a significant effort into her spam. She's described as a very effective broker and negotiator. But, it's really only then that she make good profits. To me this means that it's a nice thing realizing that the average person that believes his average tech skills might be enough to pump spam and make profit off of 0.0001% response is going to fail. It takes a bit more effort and something other than meager tech skills to make something of it.
I also wonder how many people are going to egg her house tonight?
That reminds me of the "Three Stooges" episode where they are exterminators and the bring all the vermin with them to generate business.
Ms. Betterly says she refuses to send e-mails about adult fare, because it "disgraces society."
porn is purely opt-in. spam is not. the minute I start projecting images of a 70-year old whore getting anal treatment from a 3-legged husky through her dining room window during dinnre is the day she has the right to send unsolicited shit to my inbox.
Fundamentally, her process is to make other people pay for her business. That is unacceptable.
The notion that people can "opt-out" is absurd; trying to opt-out of many lists will add you to the "sucker" list, and there's no way for a recipient to know if they'll be opted out or in fact added more.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
But, now I at least have an address to use for all those annoying website registrations.
laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
I suddenly feel like installing real player, and leaving the boxes set to "Send me lots of annoying marketing email"
I deal with a lot of Realtors and some of them print off every piece of spam and wait for me to come around to ask me about them.
Sure spam should get less and less effective over time, but there will always be stupid people.
If I could go back in time, I would setup a company that would allow people to sign up to receive spam and simply split X% of what I'd charge companies to send out marketing material. I guess it's not too late but such a service wouldn't be trusted and would be blackholed everywhere instantly.
Hmmm, maybe I'll create the site. In fact, I could make part of the business model to give X% of the profit to FSF or some other beneficial foundation.
The ideas are flowing now. I'd probably be too scared of being labeled as a spammer.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Because Ms. Betterly's e-mails aren't, in the strictest sense, unsolicited, she doesn't consider them spam. So she isn't breaking any rules when she sends hundreds of thousands of messages through, say, WorldCom Inc., one of her many service providers.
What are they talking about? How is her spam not, in the strictest sense, unsolicited?
with this: Start-> Run-> Type -> RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove and use a different client like trillian.
TIME is the Aether...
from smartpages.com...
LAURA BETTERLY
717 WEATHERSFIELD DR
DUNEDIN FL 34698
(727) 733-5335
I suggest we fill out 500,000 business reply cards in her name and see how she likes it.
there are the morons who use the half way house to internet(AOL) these are not the brightest of users. you know the ones that believe you can use 1000 free hours in a month? guess what there's only 720 hours in a month, so if these people can reason out simple math. what makes you think they will be able to tell the diference between "a good deal" and a msg from a friend?
first hit on google search of:
"data resource consulting betterly"
turns up her email and phone number
Contact: Laura Betterly
;) You should too.
President, Data Resource Consulting
Phone: 727-733-5335
I called her, got her voice mail... Left her a warm message from the heart
Two days later, 275 people had opened the messages
So there's some mail tracking going on. Get less people using fundamentally insecure software and the scum will be able to track less of this partial success and lose the ability to tune headers to catch more users.
Time to renew the fight against HTML mail.
The question is whether anyone knows anything about these accounts:
From: FredY9686@earthlink.com
Errors-To: Dave34_29@ecite.com
or has also seen the same or similar mailings?
One hardly needs to be able to read headers to read the From address. I mean, cripes, they didn't even bother to forge the From address to (appear to) come from the Spamcop domain.
So a quick search on google pops up Laura Betterly as the president of visiosonic.com whose product just happens to be an mp3 dj software package. figured it couldn't possibly be the same person but if you scroll down a ways here:i o.shtml :)
http://www.djzone.net/pg/archives/0899/vis
you see the names of her tech guy and ex husband pop up... go figure...
-tom
"Filtering anything is not the right thing for them to be doing."
Like hell they shouldn't!
They should block incoming traffic based on blacklist rules. There is no reason anything anywhere should be sending incoming traffic to SUNRPC or NetBIOS ports! None!!! I'm sure we can agree on not blocking ports above 1024, because those are dynamically assigned, but WELL KNOWN services under 1024 have every reason to be blocked, because they are WELL ABUSED services!
The internet is a commons. If any one system is insecure, it can be used to bash other systems -- everyone loses security because of one screwup. There should be laws against it the same way there are laws against throwing toxic waste into rivers.
What can ISPs do to be proactive about things like this once laws are in place? Well, they can block known traffic patterns that match a black-list of disabled traffic patterns (such as FIN scanning). That's not something you'll have a problem with, because you won't be FIN scanning. And your machine is less likely broken in to by someone who might be FIN scanning because commonly insecure services are filtered at the ISP!
AOL's not about to blast some AOLer off of a connection because my machine says it's being attacked by it. Why shouldn't my ISP just drop the packets at their location, rather than wasting bandwidth I could be using?
Filtering makes a lot of sense. Besides, if you're a consumer interent person, how likely are you to be wanting to run a webserver? Joe Sixpack sure doesn't want to be accidently running IIS's latest worm, so they block it. If you want to host a website, you'll probably talk to them about a different connection package, or go to a different ISP where such a package exists. But that's not a technical problem, that's a social/business problem.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The question is whether anyone knows anything about the accounts in the headers or has also seen the same or similar disinformation mailings...
Thanks to governamental funds on Brazil to keep posting rates low, and i mean very very low as 1 cent/normal leter i'll be printing all the SPAM i get and mailing her :)
Come on guys, let's call her and tell how thankful we r. And don't forget to ask if her want's to be removed from the opt-in calling list
Laura Betterly
717 Weathersfield Dr
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
(727)733-5335
This is a 5????
Why - what is insightful here?
Paragraph 1 is an inaccurate[1] and personal attack on the previous poster - no insight here.
Paragraph 2 is the usual bleating of 'how did my email get out' - no insight here.
Paragraph 3 is a BGO, Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious - no insight here.
Paragraph 4 is a plain and simple personal attack - no insight here
====
[1] Why Inaccurate?
1) Because enabling a program to run without using its CD as a key does not AUTOMATICALLY mean the poster does not own the original.
2) Because while the use of the no-cd crack for any reason may be illeagal under the DMCA in the US, elsewhere it is not, and will be decided on intent.
3) The poster's family is not at any legal risk - in most juristrictions (Not US due to DMCA) this is a CIVIL not a CRIMINAL risk, no-one is going to chase you for a few bucks because they will have to pay for the case, the state will not. Even in a juristriction where this is a crminial offence it will almost certainly not be prosecuted by the state as it will not be in the pbulic interest.
Additionally they can only chase the poster, not thier family. Why be personal and bring thier family into the argument. Not surely because they took the trouble to explain they'd used the no-cd crack to protect the original cd's when his kids played with them? If thats the true explanation then that is perfectly morally and ethically defensible thing to do with something you own that in certain juristrictions is being criminilized by poor legislation
Here's my mirror.
To the poster who located this, that's just beautiful! I particularly love the crosshair right over her home. You can almost see the smartbomb falling down her chimney in the next instant...
Note to John Ashcroft and freinds: I'm just kidding with the part about the bomb. Really. I'm a pacifist. It's a JOKE.
Actually, 3,000,000 * 0.002% = 60.
Thus, to get 120 sales, that means irritating 6 million people.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
The ISP has the same obligation to suppress spam by its subscriber regardless of whether the target is on or off their service. The victim should use all means of complaint available; he or she suffers an economic injury from these intrusions. Even if it only takes fifteen minutes to learn about and implement port blocking, my time is worth money.
Practically, the ISP is going to deal with this unwelcoming messaging after enough annoyed complaints come in. But how?
This information is compiled from online directories, the article itself, and from public records:
/ /www.dataresourceconsulting.com/0 37
. ht m
0 3713867 9220447148,00.html
_ list.ht m
Laura Betterly
laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
http:
717 Weathersfield Dr
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
727-733-5335
727-447-2037
727-468-2
The others involved in the company are:
Joel Betterly (evidently her ex-husband) and
Chris Connell
chris@eshop1.com
8224 SOLANO BAY LOOP APT 717
TAMPA, FL 33635-9567 US
Phone: 813-814-4085
Phone: 813-854-2833
Fax: 813-854-3283
The Dunedin city zoning people can be found here:
http://www.ci.dunedin.fl.us:/dunedin/phone_list
Deb King in zoning at 727-298-3194 suggested that I call licensing at 727-298-3201 to complain. That is the extension of Mary Gouge. I called to complain. The article appeared on the front page of the WSJ today, and I may mail a copy to Mary. The fax number for the licensing section is 727-298-3206. The house is located in a residential zone.
The article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1
It contains a description of her faxing from her home, the names of her kids, her company, her tech (Chris Connell, who lives in Tampa, FL).
Dunedin govt. contact list is here:
http://www.ci.dunedin.fl.us:/dunedin/phone
Well for one, I don't get 50 bulk mailings delivered by the US Postal service every day.
...
And two, I can't use spam to get a fire started in my fireplace.
Third, I've never gotten any illegal bulk snail-mail or snail-mail scams.
Fourth, not once have I gotten a virus from snail-mail.
Fifth, I've never gotten snail mail that was made to look like it was from a guy 2 cubicles down.
Sixth
Seventh PROFIT!
Got that captain dipshit?
I am using AI Roboform to fill in as many submissions to SPAM producing accounts that I find on behalf of everyone at Ms B's website and her home. Dog food, condoms, tampons freebies too. I hit a dozen or so opt-in sites and will spend all night doing this. Look for her on Hotmail, etc and add her to dozens of lists. She deserves no less, and maybe, if I find some free BOOZE samples, she will be able to use those free condoms that are already in the mail...maybe, but it will take dozens of those little bottles o make her look do-able.
An excellent point, and not one with which I disagree. I think federalizing anti-spam law would be a fantastic idea; this is exactly the sort of cross-border commerce that the federal government is designed to regulate. Congress has taken a couple of (aborted) runs at it, but hasn't managed to pass anything yet.
Granted, there is still the problem of conflicting national approaches..
She claims to have lists of folks who opted-IN and can therefore send mail. I'll bet the lists are merely bot harvested drivel and none of the people is a true opt-in...only IDIOTS opt-in. Naturally, after looking at her likeness, she would have to be a spammer, she could not get a date unless the fleet was in port.
the companys website is
http://dataresourceconsulting.com/
and you can email her at
laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
to meet all your spamming needs...
Before everyone launches a game of Internet doorbell-ditch: it is legitimate to send a real email or make a phone call criticizing what she does (politely -- remember, you're with the good guys). Collectively /. should be able to produce a lot of feedback, at one per person. If she just gets snowed by abuse, so you really think she'll going to think, golly, my ways are in error and I better change jobs? Or just, there are a lot of jerks out there and I better never give another interview?
Harassment is no better than spam. It's using illegitimate needs to get what you want. She is doing something wrong (ethically if not legally; and in many states, legally too) but that entitles us to complain, not retaliate. Two wrongs don't make a right, something like that.
She honestly appears not to get it, or is in serious denial. (By contrast, some spammers do appear to have struck a deal with the Dark Prince.) Explain to her, and everyone else, that spam is a serious problem and not just another form of junk mail.
And most important of all, support laws to regulate spam at the national level, as was done for junk faxes. Make it unquestionable that this hijacking of our tiem and resources is illegal.
(I do detest spam. When email arrives, half the time I switch apps over it's for junk. Currently 2/3 of my unfiltered inbox is spam, and the number keeps growing. I don't even want to think of the theoretical maximum to daily spam.)
Thing that got me was that these spammers may buy 'legitimate' databases, but then they own them, which means you can get removed from one, but not all of them - 1000 spammers buy the full list from 'About' and expect users to politely remove themselves from all of them!
Your post was bad form... (Smack Nose) BAD FORM!
I didn't think I deserved to be modded up, but modded DOWN???
Are we modding down comments just because we don't agree with them?
PS, Go ahead, Mod me down. You're waisting your points, I'll just post it again.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
post her e-mail address...
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
A quick google search turns up a link to this article http://www.djzone.net/pg/archives/0899/visio.shtml which not only mentions Chris, but also Ms. Betterly, linking him to http://www.visiosonic.com/ whois will give you his email address
Refs at Here and and here as well as a Laura Betterly on the 1997 WISE list. (Co$ organization.)
Yet another scientology spammer, what a surprise!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
http://www.wordsinarow.com/email_lists.html
Laura Betterly
laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
I thought about switching to the new bayesian filters I'd read about on Slashdot, but they don't seem that mature yet
:)
They're mature, they work and they get rid of over 90% of my spam. Check out spamprobe and bogofilter, in my oppinion the most mature of the bunch. spamprobe does have more features
She doesn't forge headers.
That's what she said; and technically it's correct, she doesn't do it, but her computer guy does, from the article:
He labors over a message's subject line; he's found people are more likely to open e-mail if it appears to be from a real person, so he types his friends' names on "from" lines.
That IS forging headers. That's using deception to try to get me to open her e-mails. You say she's not a spammer; I say, not only is she a spammer, she's also a natural born liar. Not the kind of people I'd like to deal with. Fortunately I have spamprobe to take care of spam for me.
Are you serious?
The game developers decided to implement a anti-piracy scheme which requires that the original CD has to be in the drive in order to play it, in an attempt to deter piracy.
He owns the game, but doesn't want his kids scratching up the CD, because he doesn't have to spend another $40.00 buying another copy of the game. A legally archived copy of the game CD will not allow the game to be played, because simply copying the CD doesn't copy the errors intentionally introduced by the game manufacturers onto the CD, as a form of copy protection.
So he installs a crack to allow his children to play this game without actually handling the CD which he owns into the computer. Regardless of the purpose of the copy protection circumvention, what he is doing is likely technical violation of the DMCA.
Are you seriously saying that in your mind, his actions are illegal, and you have absolutely no further opinion on the issue, as if his technical illegality is morally the same as someone who plays the crack and never bought the game in the first place?
--something witty
I recently did an analysis of spam addressed to me (http://www.winface.com/spam/spam.html if you want to see my attempt to be lighthearted instead of outraged about this stuff). The nature and distribution of the stuff I get does not match that reported in the article - For example, I get three times more porno come-ons (38%) than the article suggests (12%).
Now it could be that I disproportionally attract certain kinds of spam but I think it more likely that the article shaded the facts to present a more positive picture.
I suspect that's true on the response rate stuff too because the article never answers the question about how the lady really makes any money at this. At a guess, the real long term response is much higher than she indicates - particularly on porno and related for products and "services" she didn't discuss with the interviewer.
A 0.002% response rate for 3 million emails isn't 6 thousand responses, it's only 60.
Not that anyone cares, or would use it, but :
the listed (http://www.wordsinarow.com/email_lists.html) email address for this spammer is : laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
The web page for the company is
http://www.dataresourceconsulting.com
Now there is an ethical question:
If its ok for her to send out millions of spam emails to us, is it ok for us to send her one email each (no more, naturally - though I guess it's ok to tell your friends) suggesting its not such a great thing.
Or maybe each time each of us gets spam we should forward a copy to her as a favor - yes, a favor, a way for her to get new spam contacts.
Given attempts at legal throttling of free speech such as the CDA and the recent Australian efforts (as mentioned on slashdot) and the European Community efforts (slashdot again) and
A Brave New World indeed, where spam is legal but not much else is. Something for us all to look forward to.
The Problem:
The current email marketing business model is broken, it costs spammers almost nothing and the end-user or ISPs everything. (Plus it's annoying as heck!)
The (simple) solution:
For End Users: Create a 100% accountable email marketing site that allows users to signup to receive marketing material in exchange for money.
For Businesses: Do a search before you buy into the system to see how many people are willing to accept marketing information based on the criteria you select.
More explanation:
For End Users:
For Businesses:
Anti-Spam Links
(This is a patent free business model. If you like it, use it and make it better!)
According to the WSJ story the computer "expert" is
a Chris Connell in Tampa. Interestingly enough, there is a Chris Connell in Tampa associated with a "safebackup.com". And a Joel Betterly also associated with the same company. Concidence? Probably. Especially since "safebackup.com" has a decent privacy policy.
Hmm, should I feel bad about spreading this around?
I suppose so, and I'm sure I'll do so about the same time that the Betterly's and Connells of the world feel bad about spamming me.
If we had a free anti-spam product such as Razor that we could get OEMs to agree to add to the install base then we could make some rapid reductions in spam.
Or what about getting the feature added to a few major ISPs mail servers? If a large ISP made use of the spam databases it would knock out big chunks of these e-mail lists that are shared.
Being an economist I can try to add some economics to this to further confuse the discussion.
The biggest problem with spam is that it creates an externality. That is, Ms. Spammers actions impose a cost on others that she doesn't bear so doesn't care about. Its the same as polluters - coal fired power plants belching out soot impose costs on people that they don't have to pay for, as a result they do too much. The fact that the cost she faces is close to zero is part of the problem but isn't really the root problem.
The economic solution is to make people pay for the inconvenience caused. The method would be something like this: you set up an email address and put a price on it. Anyone wishing to send email to this address must pay $1 (say). Then, if they think their message is important enough they will send it and pay for your inconvenience.
Making spam cost something to the sender is one way of achieving this but it puts the same price on everyone's inbox (a few cents I would guess) - and some people's time is more important than others.
There are, naturally, lots of practical problems with this but its the gist of the solution. If you want to send me mail you have to pay for the inconvenience you are going to cause.
That's the economics!
The solution is to charge users $.01 for every email sent. That will make spamming uneconomic, while having no perceptible impact on normal email usage.
(I think it was cypherpunks-list); where it was suggested the recipient receive a penny or less per email; the thought being that if you write that person back, the transaction cancels itself out; along those lines, your spam-detecting mail server could 'charge more' for potential spam, making it less attractive for non-legit spammers to get to you; the recipient becomes pleased with spam because they are getting 1-3 pennies per email;) As for the infrastructure required, I'd suggest brokerage root servers that would handle the actual cash transactions (i.e. settle up with other brokerage servers at the end of the day), and allow users to cash out. --c3w
Perhaps we're looking at the problem incorrectly. We should look at ways of making spam MORE effective, not less. It is in everyone's interest (including the spammers) to make tools that "target" spam more effectively.
The problem is not so much unsolicited mail, but rather unwanted mail. An email from a long lost friend who happens to find your email address on a website is unsolicited, but certainly not unwanted. Similarly if I'm in the market for 3D goggles, and I receive an email from a company selling same, than that email is not unwanted.
Why would spammers ever want to more effectively target their "victims", when the cost of sending millions of emails is negligible? Simple. Trust. At the moment, I would not reply to a spam email selling a product I was interested in, simply because I see so many get-rich-quick spams that I wouldn't trust the spammer to give me anything for my money.
I suppose what I find interesting is that there -are- people into computers who are -willing- to do this.
In all my time working with computers (and the Internet), I've never met one supporter of spam, but indeed, they -are- out there.
Who are these people? Are they doing it solely for the money? Are they slashdotters?
Phone: 727-733-5335
LAURA BETTERLY
717 WEATHERSFIELD DR
DUNEDIN FL 34698
laura@dataresourceconsulting.com
Is in danger of being signed up on a bunch
of snail-mail spam lists. Perhaps porn-related?
Someone should warn her!
San Diego Padres, 100 Park Blvd, San Diego CA 92101
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by
You really think this professional mail abuser publicized an address she uses much? And you don't think she has adequate precautions against inbound mail abuse?
I assume that any email address she actually cares about is kept well insulated from her spamming business. And her ex-husband will probably grind this publicized account through some scripts to discard the automated abuse and find the one or two messages from potential spam sponsors, which was probably her goal in cooperating with the WSJ.
Hell, I throw the damn things on the ground. If someone is going to spam me and clutter up my windshield, I'll make it more costly to society to clean up after them.
--C
Look ma, I'm a
Check my math here. If the spam queen spends $250 for 500,000 emails, and 0.00002 (2 thousandths of a percent) of the 500,000K emails is a success (for those keeping track, that's 1 successful email), and she gets 40% on a sale, then the cost of the anti-spam software has to be $625 for her to even break even.
That's some dang expensive anti-spam software to be selling via spam.
Am I the only person who thinks this woman might have just as well put an ad in the newspaper saying "sniper wanted"?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
True, but the, there are other factors which one must consider. To equate drug lords with spamming is great rhetoric, but not a very cogent argument. In any case, I assume that you're being tongue in cheek anyway, but it does bring up a good point.
Being basically a pure libretarian (people should be able to do anything they want so long as it interferes with no one else's lives), I do have *some* problem with Betty's chosen line of work. It does infringe on other's people's lives somewhat to have spam show up in their mailbox. Still, I can, and do, block spam very effectively. I maybe get one or two emails a month that slip through. There are very few things that interfere with my life any less than spam does.
There *are* some instances were spam is unacceptable, however. The drug lord example illustrates two. First, where what is being spammed is illegal, or there exist laws which make the spamming itself illegal. Two, targetting spam towards individuals who are not competent (mainly children) to distinguish BS from fact or exposing children to adult material (which I would consider a good reason to ban adult spam, especially where adult content is contained directly in the spam).
Spam can cross the line, but really, it usually doesn't. Turn off your cookies, only give out your Yahoo! address, and don't worry about it to much.
Whoa! I think I'll have to risk my karma further on this one.
First off, I don't understand why spam can't be regulated. Remember, is does not equal can. It certainly can be regulated. Laws can be passed that prohibit it. You may now say, "Ah, but what about other countries?" Well, if they don't agree to a common, basic set of regulations which we deem necessary and correct, we just bounce all their traffic. Easy enough.
I have four email addresses, I get spam to exactly one of them. I use filters on that one. What actually gets through to me? One spam a month. How much porn have I seen? None. That's the easiest to filter.
Hey, looks like I regulated it myself even.
In fact, I have much more control over spam than I do over any other form of advertising. I'm personally far more offended by political attack ads I get over my TV than by penis enlargement (which I don't get anyway).
Now, I agree whole heartedly that children should be protected from certain material, and spam should be regulated. But, the fact that it is not is not the fault of the spammers, it's the fault of the legislature and the populace.
Finally, and I've touched on this in more than one response already, if you think an email, which can be easily blocked, filtered, or deleted based simply on the title is "evil," then you really should get out more. Murder, war, destroying lives, these things are evil. Some nudie pics and silliness may be annoying, decadent, possibly without virtue, and maybe even morally corrupt but you lead a pampered life indeed if such things are your definition of "evil" is an offer to grow your cock a few inches.
I'm not saying you should be a spammer. I don't want to be a spammer. If it violates your principles do so, certainly, don't do it.
*But* it violates my principles to eat meat, and I would rather no one did, for I honestly believe that all living things have value, but I'm not going to force that on anyone. I may be wrong. It may be just for me. I don't know, so I'm not going to call you evil for killing what I would consider a sacred and holy creature. (BTW, yes, plant life is sacred as well, but, in the great ironies of the universe, life requires death, and so I simply choose to cause as little death as I can and accept that.)
But, if I'm not going to call someone evil for eating meat (or hunting, or whatever), I find it hard to believe that spam is such a big deal.
As for "invasion of privacy," I really don't understand that at all. I'm not trying to be argumentative, or attacking here, it just really doesn't seem like that big a deal. Maybe I'm wrong--if I am, I'd like to find that out.
But a spammer has stolen no information about you (no more than the ISP, your phone company, or a million other organizations). So, if they're evil for getting your email address, then so is just about every commercial enterprise and everyone that works for them (which I assume includes you). If you mean that actually sending you an email is the invasion of privacy, I really don't understand that. Privacy, here, may be:
(form dictoinory.com)
1. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
2. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
Certainly, it does not violate 1, which is the usual meaning. It kind of violates 2, but to a much lesser degree than a TV ad, or even having other people around. I find having to sit next to someone at the movie much more intrusive than I do little bits on my hard drive that get silently deleted by my email filters.
But hey, that's me.
Some people certainly go to far in pursuit of "making a living," and I am all for a principled life. But, in the perfect world, there would be no hunger, no murder, and respect for everyone. Would the world be better if spamming weren't here? Sure. But where does that rank on the scale of things I would change about the world? Maybe not at the bottom, but there are certainly many, many, far more pressing issues to come first.
First off, there's no need to call me an idiot (or imply such). I support, and would invite feverent disagreement. If I'm wrong, I'd want to know why. I certainly understand your passion if 20% of your bandwidth is utilized by spam, but that is no excuse. You do not know me, you do not know my full argument or context of my reasoning. It would be impossible for me to provide such. I would expect brusqness, and don't care much for tact myself, but it is foolishness to read some half off-hand, 100 word posting about a trivial subject and conclude such things about people.
.001% So, even if 20% of all email is spam, 20% of .001% is just not that big a deal.
Now, onto the response.
There are benefits to commercials, but there are also benefits to spam. Those spammers have to buy computers, have a connection of some sort, pay some ISP something. This all supports the internet in general. The real question, is, whether the benefit outweighs the cost. With spam, it may very well. I, however, would argue the same for commercials. Except for one show, I only watch public telivision. It's not because I dislike commercial TV shows, there are many I love, but I don't want my time wasted by commercials.
You say 20% of your bandwidth is wasted by spam? Super. 25% of my time watching commercial TV is wasted by commercials. I haven't been compensated, and my time is about the most precious thing I have.
Secondly, I cannot believe your situation is common. Perhaps it is, and if I'm wrong I want to know. But I know that only about 5% of my email is spam. Besides that, while a lot of email bandwidth (your running an mail server) may be consumed by spam, I know that email constitutes much less than a percent of my total bandwidth useage. I would guess it's closer to
Finally, yes, in the extreme taking something from someone can be evil. But, commercials take my time. Dogs crapping in my yard take my valuable yard space. Personally, I call this annoying, and I file spam somewhere below the dog because it just doesn't matter that much to me.
Your situation is obviously different, but it is neither canonical, nor the only point of view. Personally, I think politicians taking my money to kill people and twist the truth to their own ends is much closer to evil. Corporate execs lying and stealing money for their own gain, now we're getting somewhere. Someone intentionally takes someone's life, that's evil.
If you call a few unwanted 1s and 0s bounced off your router "evil," then perhaps I have very flawed conception of the world, but it seems to me that you must lead a very pampered life indeed.
Let's just say she makes $20 per sucker, er, sale.
... almost _pure_ profit. The problem IS the buyers in addition to her. Could you imagine if we ALL tried to sell crap?
:) with my own domains (personal and corporately) and email boxes sitting on my servers in either my office or my basement. MINE.
That's $1,200 less the $250 to batch it. $950 and let's even take off ANOTHER $150 in "business expenses". Bastards (the BUYERS now...)
Per batched email she's pissing off 3 million of us, maybe even just ONE million actually "see" it. So what. She just made $800 for doing WHAT?
Rest a day.
Repeat.
Phrofit? Yeah
I would hope the general mass would JUST SAY NO and literally buy NOTHING. Zero.
Otherwise the noise ratio is going to get too high and we'll all be on a blocking email basis UNLESS you are specifically allowed. No easy way to catch up or find a old friend... Could you image a Windows crash with this type of setup? Yuck.
To this day I have REFUSED to change my freakin' email address (as suggeseted by local channel 7 Chicago news tonight on just this issue). Will I ADVERTISE it like it was done in days of old?
Hell no. I used to use it in chat rooms, usenet, finger away if you want, signon boards, web sites (would be nice), etc. IT IS *MINE*.
The spammers just don't get it. In my case it *IS* mine. I am my own ISP (effectively
But no, I have to go hiding behind some bullshit name like "krray". WTF has the Internet come to?
Obviously, one has to be really stupid not to see the gimmick:
You pay the initial setup, and then they ignore you.
Sure, you get all service months free of charge, because they didn't eliminate a single SPAM message, but they ripped ya from 229.00$ from the start!!!
If that ain't theft, what is?
I recently got this email that claims to provide "bulk email friendly hosting".
As long as there are ISPs that allow such sites to operate, we are doomed...
We are the marketing specialists www.host4bulk.com that provide cheap
bullet proof bulk email friendly hosting for your website ($400 for
one month of bullet proof hosting) and cheap bulk email campaigns ($200
for 1 million emails sent)
As you may already know, many web hosting companies have Terms of Service
(TOS) or Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) against the delivery of emails
advertising or promoting your web site. If your web site host receives
complaints or discovers that your web site has been advertised in email
broadcasts, they may disconnect your account and shut down your web site.
Our mission is to solve your problem and provide you with bulk email
friendly hosting. You don't have to worry about your website being
closed again. Adult and gambling sites welcomed. No set up fee.
You may advertise your website by using your own resources or using 3rd
party's service. However we can do all the advertising for your business.
You just sit, relax and see how your income grows constantly. We guarantee
the lowest prices on the web for our web hosting and bulk email campaigns.
We only ask $200 us dollars for 1 million emails sent with your ad.
We don't use duplicate emails. Our email base is up to date and it is
updated weekly. Our current email data base contains over 50.000.000
emails sorted by various parameters to meet your specific needs. No
competitors may offer this price. The lowest price you can find on
the net is well over $500 for 1 million
Don't make the mistake of bulk emailing directly to your website without
bulletproof web hosting. Your web host will close your account and shut
your site down in no time! No matter how long you have been with them,
how much you are paying them, or how beautiful your site is. There are
companies charging thousands for bulletproof web hosting and they can't
keep you up and running like we can. If you host with us, your site
will NOT BE SHUT DOWN due to complaints! Bulk email campaign together
with bullet proof hosting will bring your business to success. Just
imagine how many people will learn about your business or product at a
really low price. Bulk email is considered to be the most effective way
to advertise on the net. It is hundreds times effective than banner,
solo ad and other campaigns. Once people use our service they always
come back for more. We can always provide websites that use bulk email
campaigns with our new reliable way to accept credit cards on the net
without the need to open merchant account. You can start accepting credit
card payments in second. It is totally free.
Visit our website at http://www.host4bulk.com for more information and
to order your bulk email hosting or/and email campaign.
I just remembered an old trick from junior high, involving those magazine subscription cards.
From the Fla. Sec of State:
BETTERLY, LAURA A
717 WEATHERSFIELD DRIVE
DUNEDIN FL 34698
CEFAIL, ROBERT J
4956 ORANGE GROVE WAY
PALM HARBOR FL 34684
Looks like Laura is in with the CO$:
m l
http://www.scientology-kills.org/wise2.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~catootje/wise-1999-usa.ht
Search for Betterly on these lists: how interesting!
And also payment of TV commercials supporting channels that you mentioned, I don't disagree with any of this. I never did. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer by saying "I am not adequeately compensated." I suppose there is some compensation, but I don't feel that the benefits outweigh the costs. As I pointed out somewhere in this thread, the question is and never was really, "is there benefit?" it's always been, "does the benefit outweigh the cost." I'm, for me, no. Just like you mind spam a whole bunch, and I don't, I mind billboards a whole bunch, and you don't.
I've never argued that there's anything wrong disliking spam intensly, or disliking the people that do it. These are opinions, and you're welcome to them. But, understand that not everyone has them. Just like you don't seem to mind TV commercials or billboards very much, I mind them a lot.
You may not like the view, but whether or not they can place their billboards there is not your call to make. Spammers don't ask me or my ISP anything before they put their spam in my mailbox aren't paying either of us for it either.I agree, it is not my call to make. But, like it or not, getting spam in your mailbox is not your call to make either. Admitedly, you could threaten to drop your ISP unless they block all spam for you, and never shop anywhere or do anything with anyone unless you have an iron clad guarantee that they will not sell your name out to some list, so maybe it is your call. But, I could also buy up all of east Texas, and then move there and never place myself so that my visual horizon is beyond land I own... so I guess, billboards are also my call. But, neithre reality is practical, so, just as I must subjected to billboards, so must you be subjected to spam.
Don't make the assumption that my values are the same as your's. I'm not saying you shouldn't mind spam, my only point (and I'll get back to this in a moment) is that spam is not evil.
As for spammers paying, that's exactly why I brought up the billboard and TV analogy. They're not paying you or your ISP, but they are paying their ISP. Someone is getting compensated. I really don't see why you have the right to expect payment for receiving an email while I cannot want to be compensated for being forced to gaze upon often disturbing eye sores and pathetic vignettes of modern life, or have my own view blocked by obstructions erected by others. (Indeed, there was a time where you would have to compensate me for blocking my view. The concept of "ancient ligths" as it's known is a precedent much older than the "do what you will with your land" idea. These concepts are not fixed, but fluid things.)
Yes, and if you secure your house well enough, burglaries will be rare. That doesn't mean you shouldn't complain when it does happen. The fact that you can protect your property against abuse and as such limit the abuse, doesn't make the abuse a non-issue imho.I never said, or even implied, that abuse of spam was a non-issue. I only assert that it's a relatively minor issue. For me, very minor, and I think far more minor than many on this thread make it sound, even to the one's for whom it is most serious. Also, I would say that the flaw in the burglary analogy is that if I am robbed, then I have been denied use of my property. I have never heard of a case where spam was so bad that a user actually lost the use, or a resource was even significantly impaired. I have no doubt that it *sometimes happens,* but would argue that it's really not that common, and not really a big deal. I suppose you could say that the spam occupies some of your bits on your hard drive, but only temporarily and in such a minor fashion that to wring your hands over that aspect of spam would be pointless.
Indeed, I could say that I am being "robbed" when someone is walking their dog and the animal crosses my property line. The dog would be occupying space that I own for a small period of time, but I'm not going to consider them evil for doing so. Just like with your hard drive, the space is completely recoverable and I can live with the momentary intrusion. Indeed, the dog is likely to be more destructive as he may dig or crap in my yard. An email can be deleted with narry a care.
Oh puh-lease. This is like saying "If you thing the WTC towers burning down and 3000 people being killed was evil, talk to someone who survived the concentration camps in WWII or some child soldier in Rwanda that has been forced to kill its own parrents".I don't agree. I think we can say there's a difference between murder and spam, but I really don't see a fundamental difference between your examples. Obviously we are using evil in different terms. As you say, it's a bit strong. Understand, that for me "evil" is a very serious term, and I am merely saying that it should not be used lightly. Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty of it myself, but labeling things "evil" can be dangerous. It gives us license to do and say things that we ought not be doing. Evil, to me, is something that should, without question, be destroyed. So, if a spammer is evil, then we have license to kill them. Because I'm not willing to accept that, I can't accept that they are evil. For me, there is no "more evil" or "less evil," evil is not even related to "good" and "bad." Evil is the reason why there's hunger when we can produce the food. Evil is the reason why good people do bad things. In such a context, I just can't see spam as being as important as all that.
Finally, regarding the arrogance of spammers, I agree, without reservation. Here, maybe we come to the crux of it. I dislike arrogance as well, but I never viewed the mother raising her children as arrogant, I think she just doesn't care, doesn't see it as that big of a deal. Maybe she's wrong, I'll grant, but arrogance is an active quality. You cannot be passively arrogant. For you to be a spammer, you'd have to be arrogant. For me to be a spammer, I'd have to be arrogant (or desparate, I would spam you if I would starve otherwise, sorry...), but, remembering that our stay-at-home mom spammer has a different point of view and a different context, she need not be arrogant. Thus, she is perhaps deserving of pity, or your tears (for her ignorance), but I doubt she is really deserving of your anger. She may indeed hurt you at some level, but she knows this not. At worst, she thinks she is annoying you.
Yes, there are definetly arrogant spammers. There are also, probably, evil spammers. I'm just saying that spammers themselves are not evil simply because they are spammers. I would imagine that moste just... don't know any better. But, while ignorance can be a breeding ground for evil, one who is ignorant of the effect of their actions cannot do evil, for evil, like arrogance, I assert is a willful thing.
By MYLENE MANGALINDAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
DUNEDIN, Fla. -- The sun was setting on Laura Betterly's six-bedroom house as she reviewed a pair of outgoing e-mail messages one last time. Satisfied, she moved her cursor to the "send" icon and clicked.
"It's that simple," Ms. Betterly said triumphantly, swiping her palms. She had just dispatched e-mail messages to 500,000 strangers. Half saw the subject line: "Don't miss your chance to win 2002 Lexus RX300." The other half saw: "Win a trip to Nascar!"
Ms. Betterly's messages joined the roughly two billion other unsolicited commercial e-mails that hit in-boxes around the world every day. The company she runs from her home, Data Resource Consulting Inc., sends out as many as 60 million such messages a month. That puts the 41-year-old single mother in the most hated breed on the Internet. She sends spam.
"I'm just trying to make a living like everyone else," says Ms. Betterly. Her e-mail marketing operation, she says, allows her to raise her children, Chris, 10, and Craig, 11, and to spend quality time with them. "You can call me spam queen, I don't really care. As long as I'm not breaking any laws, you don't have to love me or like what I do for a living."
Bulk e-mailers, as some spammers prefer to be called, are so unpopular that 26 states have banned their messages one way or another. Internet-service providers try to run them off their systems. Technology start-ups with products to filter out spam are attracting lots of venture capital. Consumer groups are pressuring the Federal Trade Commission and Congress to regulate bulk e-mail. Currently, there are no federal laws regarding spam, although the FTC has cracked down on spam that is fraudulent.
There is more of it than ever. Unsolicited messages made up 36% of all e-mail on the Internet in August, up from 8% a year ago, estimates Brightmail, an antispam-software maker whose statistics are often cited by legislators who want to outlaw spam. Antispammers are most outraged by unscrupulous bulk e-mailers who clog in-boxes with promotions for pornography or dubious get-rich-quick schemes and weight-loss plans.
Cottage Industry
While there are large companies that send unsolicited commercial e-mail, most of the hundreds of people who make up the industry are small-business people and entrepreneurs such as Ms. Betterly. A look at Ms. Betterly's business shows why bulk e-mailers, and spam, keep multiplying.
She and three friends started Data Resource Consulting with $15,000 six months ago. Ms. Betterly quickly discovered that she could make a profit if she got as few as 100 responses for every 10 million messages sent for a client, and she figures her income will be $200,000 this year. She has a flexible schedule that allows her to enjoy her children and the 5,000-square-foot home, with a pool, that she shares with them and a roommate.
She isn't breaking any laws. California, Washington and Virginia are among the states with laws that prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail in some form. Florida, where Ms. Betterly lives, has no such law.
Ms. Betterly says she follows a lot of the rules laid out by most of the state laws: She doesn't forge or falsify the message headers; she doesn't use a third-party company's Internet address or domain name unknowingly; she lets people opt out or unsubscribe to future mailings. Still, she doesn't put a specific label ("ADV" for advertisement) at the beginning of her subject lines, which some state laws require.
Ms. Betterly says she refuses to send e-mails about adult fare, because it "disgraces society." She won't take jobs from clients selling products she doesn't think are legitimate. And she only sends bulk e-mails to people who have indicated at some time that they want to hear more about certain products or offers. People do that, some unwittingly, when they sign up for free e-mail accounts or create chat-room identities or buy products online. Many Web sites ask users whether they are interested in receiving marketing offers and ask them to check -- or, more likely, uncheck -- an obscure little box if they don't want to receive that kind of e-mail.
Not Really Spam
Because Ms. Betterly's e-mails aren't, in the strictest sense, unsolicited, she doesn't consider them spam. So she isn't breaking any rules when she sends hundreds of thousands of messages through, say, WorldCom Inc., one of her many service providers. WorldCom, like most providers, has an antispam policy. "Sending unsolicited mail messages, including, without limitation, commercial advertising and informational announcements, is explicitly prohibited," WorldCom's policy says.
Even though she tries not to e-mail people who have expressly indicated, on one Web site or another, that they don't want unsolicited messages, recipients do often complain. While some unscrupulous spammers ignore people who ask to be removed from a list, Ms. Betterly says she complies if anyone e-mails back an "unsubscribe" command, sends "opt out" instructions or otherwise asks not to receive future messages.
"What we do for a living is not a bad thing. We're not horrible," she says.
The company that hired Ms. Betterly to send the Lexus RX300 and Nascar trip e-mails was wfsDirect Inc. Based in Omaha, Neb., wfsDirect has been selling what it calls "online marketing services" since 1999. The company compiles consumer profiles for other companies that use them for e-mail pitches of their own. It gets information for the profiles by sponsoring e-mail sweepstakes for big prizes. To be eligible for the prize, an e-mail recipient goes to a wfsDirect Web site to fill out a survey that asks for the person's name, address, income and other personal details.
In other words, this round of spam was a fishing expedition designed to catch names for future rounds of spam.
Ms. Betterly was hired to send out the 500,000 messages, which wfsDirect composed. She negotiated a commission of 75 cents for every completed survey returned and 10 cents for every incomplete survey.
The Lexus and Nascar messages went to mail-server computers in Berkeley, Calif., that spent two hours shooting them around the U.S. Two days later, 275 people had opened the messages. Only 65 completed the surveys, generating just $40 for Ms. Betterly, who says her costs for sending out the messages totaled $250.
'Horrible' Rate
The response rate of 0.013% was "horrible," Ms. Betterly says. A great response rate for Ms. Betterly would be a disaster for a paper-junk mailer, which expects a typical response of about 2%. Depending on what she's pitching, Ms. Betterly says she can break even at a rate as low as 0.001%. It all depends on the commission she negotiates, and she's considering a few jobs that could pay off particularly well: $35 on each sale of a 3D-glasses package; $50 for a mortgage lead; $85 for a cellphone sale.
Ms. Betterly's database is her most precious asset. She bought and bartered its 100 million e-mail addresses from dozens of places, including companies such as Excite (excite.com), About.com (about.com) and Ms. Cleo's psychic Web site. She can fine-tune e-mail runs, hitting just small-business owners, say, or only golfers or music fans. She can cull out certain addresses, to narrow her geographic target. Like most spammers, she also makes money selling her list to other bulk e-mailers, and she keeps adding to her own list.
In August, she heard through a contact at a technology firm about the kind of high-quality list spammers dream of: A database of 16 million addresses, gathered legitimately and held by a high-tech company that she won't name. It had been used successfully before, she knew, to send out newsletters. But she couldn't afford the price: $200,000. Working her contacts, she found someone with an equally attractive list and brokered a trade between the two lists' owners. They paid her by letting her keep both lists.
Ms. Betterly recognized the importance of databases when she went to work as an organizer of music events and corporate parties after her divorce in 2000 and found herself sending bulk e-mail to promote events. As responses poured in, she realized that there might be real money in e-mail marketing if she had a bigger list. "It was like a light," she says. Now, she has one of the biggest lists in the business. "If you have 30 million to 60 million [addresses], you're going to get a certain percentage of [recipients] who think your stuff is cool," she says. "It's a numbers game."
Ms. Betterly, who has an accounting degree from the New York Institute of Technology, says Data Resource Consulting is a profitable concern -- she won't say how profitable -- that pays handsome salaries to its four full-time employees. Her roommate handles administrative tasks and her fiance is chief operations officer. A friend in Tampa along with her ex-husband keep the company's computers and servers running. Ms. Betterly spends most of her time lining up customers, the beauty-cream makers, software houses and e-mail-list compilers that pay her to send e-mails.
From the PC in his tidy two-bedroom Tampa apartment, Chris Connell, the company's computer expert, recently launched a large, promising campaign for Ms. Betterly. "New discovery in spam the easy way!" read the subject line on most of the 15.8 million messages he sent out. They promoted antispam software from Triumvirate Technologies Inc. of Pasadena, Calif. In theory, if enough people bought the software and it worked, Data Resource Consulting could go out of business, but Mr. Connell wasn't worried.
Mr. Connell paced the e-mails -- instructing his computer to send them out in batches of 150 -- to stay under the radar screens of the Internet-service providers he channeled the messages through. It took him more than a week to finish the job.
On the eighth day, his computer beeped. "Ooooh, I got a sale!" he crowed. There were two messages, one from Triumvirate Technologies, telling Mr. Connell that someone read the spam about the antispam software and bought the product for $57. Under the terms of the contract, Ms. Betterly's company will get 40% of that, or $22.80.
But the other message was a complaint from WorldCom. A WorldCom customer had reported an "alleged violation" of the company's policy that prohibits spamming. "We request you take whatever measures you deem appropriate which will ensure no further violation will occur," the e-mail from WorldCom said.
Mr. Connell typed a response: "Problem solved. This guy won't receive anything from us again." He flagged the name of the offended e-mail recipient on Ms. Betterly's list so that person wouldn't be contacted again.
WorldCom says that if problems with a spammer persist, the company will send increasingly stern notices and eventually cut off service.
In Data Resource Consulting's six months in business, Internet providers have halted the company's service three times, making it impossible for the company to send e-mail messages over that Internet channel for as long as 30 days. In each case, the provider said the company's e-mails had generated too many complaints from recipients.
Mr. Connell constantly tinkers with ways to avoid that. He says he has learned to limit the outflow to about one million messages a day and to use multiple Internet services to spread the volume around.
He also hunts for new ways to get around software that tries to filter out spam and to get people to open his e-mails. He labors over a message's subject line; he's found people are more likely to open e-mail if it appears to be from a real person, so he types his friends' names on "from" lines. "The trick is to make it look personal," he said as he tapped out commands on his computer. "You want to make it look like it comes from the guy in the cubicle down the hall."
In the first week of the Triumvirate Technologies campaign, 81 orders came through from 3.5 million messages, a 0.0023% response rate. Still, that generated $1,555 in commissions, and Ms. Betterly was pleased. At that rate, she expected to clear about $25,000 in the end.
Recently Ms. Betterly opened a message from a woman claiming to be the daughter of former Philippines President Joseph Estrada, asking if Ms. Betterly would like to make some money by helping the woman hide $17.3 million in embezzled funds.
That kind of spam "is why what we do has a bad name," Ms. Betterly says. "People actually fall for this stuff."
Write to Mylene Mangalindan at mylene.mangalindan@wsj.com
Updated November 13, 2002 12:34 p.m. EST
As for the spam in my inbox, that's indeed not something like a burglary. Maybe a better analogy in that case would be tresspassing and leaving thrash behind, which I then have to clean up. Using your dog anology, it's as if 20 people a day would let their dog drop its, well, droppings in your garden. With the addition that you would have to pay part of the transportation cost of the droppings from the owners house to yours (bandwidth usage).
We're definitely using different interpretations of the word "evil"Donate free food here
Under the assumption that much spam is loaded with web bugs and cookies, the best thing Mozilla could do it turn off images and cookies in mail by default. As implied in the WSJ Spam article, the spammer can count and get paid for the number of messages that get through. They forge the 'from', 'reply to', and 'subject' headers to fool people into opening the spam. Once open, the web bug is loaded, the cookie and set, and your email address can be marked as good for future spam. If Mozilla was set by default to not load the bugs unless the user specifically requests it, it would allow the user to check the mail without being a target. These options should be moved to the 'mail' section of the prefs.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Would it be fair to say that you "should" be able to demand that they not spam you? I agree with that. What I meant was that, empirically, you can't. I agree that this indicates that the world is not perfect, and could be better, but my meaning was simply that if someone sends you spam, and you can't stop them, then you can't stop them. So, maybe it should be your call to make, but, empirically, it isn't.
I see your point about open relays. Most of my experience has been with closed systems, and my home systems, so the potential for such abuse was much less. That is a serious problem that I did not give sufficient weight to in my original statements.
Learn something new every day. Excellent.
I send copies of my spam to uce@ftc.gov anyway so I added Laura@dataresourceconsulting.com to the list. Looks like they dislike this stuff as most people do. Notice this reply I just got:
Steve Blom wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> Just so you know, you are not on any of our lists and none of the offers you are forwarding came from us.
>
> We do not send this kind of typical stuff. The reporter misquoted Laura out of context and sensationalized it. We deal only with legitimate opt in people and lists.
>
> I have it set so that any further email from you is deleted from the server, with the exception of the above subject line in the message. Please keep in mind that we are not like you are thinking. All email is not the same, and we are not responsible for every email that hits your inbox.
>
> We are actually behind a national "do not email" list which you can find at http://www.donotemaillist.com/ which will take you off of ALL mailings from many legitimate email marketers, including us. We wash all our mailings against this list. Legitamate marketers do not want to send mail to people who don't want to recieve it.
>
> This will not stop all the illegal mail, the porn, and the herbal viagra and stuff that you get from the illegal guys but it is something.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve
Mod this up! This is a very nice detective work!
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
We are talking about spam. I wasn't the one who brought up CDs originally, but I'm pretty sure both of us are sorry we mentioned it
While I agree with you in principle, I feel obligated to point out a flaw in your logic: What if there is no "elsewhere"?
I am fortuate enough to have a cable modem through TimeWarner. Do I want a cable modem? No. Do I want TimeWarner? No. Do I have a choice? No.
What I want is broadband. Just a pipe and no screwing around with ports. Oh, and I don't want to pay hundreds of dallars. See, I can't get DSL, and there is no wireless within range, and I can't do satellite (even if I wanted to) because I face the wrong way and my apartment community has rules about dishes anyway...
Now, I realize I could move. I realize I don't have a divine right to broadband in my house at a decent price. At the same time, I would really love to be able to do something other than whine about it.
I thought part of the "deal" with the telco/cable comglomerates was that they get to merge and use a lot of public resources and in exchange they had to provide access to competitors. So, where is that?
Governments should create a new tax level, let's say 150% for spam companies - and that will probably kill this 'industry'.
:)
No money for spam => no spam.
your post is apparently insightful, but I'm too dumb to understand, I guess. Please explain.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Why not just take her, and all of her associates email addresses and add them to other opt-in lists/"services".
Though she might have her own spam filter.
A pathetic person is one that would block mail they sent or supported.
If illegal I am not bound to anyone elses actions.
The only really good reason I can think to not release specs is
embarrassment on just how crappy some hardware out there is, or just how
buggy it is.
-- Chris Wedgwood
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...