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)."
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.
Spam via SMB is quite the new thing, I gather. This has the potential to _really_ piss people off.
But it could turn out to be a good thing. The reason we can't stop spam by blocking port 25 is that we need to accept email from people who have legitimate reasons to send it. But who has a legitimate reason to connect to SMB on a desktop machine via the Internet? Nobody. Ever.
If this leads ISPs to block the ports involved, the world will be a better place, with no more script kiddies owning Win98 machines via smbclient.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Argh, I get people at work complaining about this. "I called Comcast, and they're not doing anything about it, those jerks!"
Your ISPs job is to provide you an internet connection that you pay for - it is NOT their job to secure your computer for you.
If you're getting Messenger spam, then you probably don't know how to protect your computer, which means if I were you, I'd be worrying about what else on your box is 0wned.
Your ISPs job is to provide you an internet connection that you pay for - it is NOT their job to secure your computer for you.
It is their job to enforce their TOS--which most likely perclude spamming.
And if the IP is off-network, simply contacting whomever owns it would work.
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.
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.
I'd wholeheartedly support a 1 cent/email fee to be imposed across the board, by law, everywhere. Would you?
Nope. Then people who run legitimate email lists (hobbyists, listservs, PTA, whatever) would be out of luck. A 1000 family PTA group could incur almost $5k/year with a once a week mailing.
Let's not screw the honest person to block the dishonest.
If such things are "the basics of business" for you, I feel sorry for all people that have to do business with you.
Donate free food here
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.
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.
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!
I have a solution for you.... make a mailer filter that forewards every symantic email to sales@symantic.com abuse.symantic.com piracy@symantic.com etc....
they will eventually stop.... it worked for me.... No more microsoft spam.... I just have an autoforeward to about 7 of their email addresses whenever a microsoft spam hits.... they stopped sending to me over a month ago...
dont bug the spammer, bug the company listed in the spam... make their spam bite them in the arse.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
I'm getting criticism like this from folks who don't read closely enough.
The poster said should not and not can not. In other words, this is the way the poster wants things to be, or thinks they ought to be, or hopes they will be, for the reasons given, but not the way they must be. That filtering is "not the right thing" is a policy assertion, and it is implicit the poster will switch ISP's if the current one downgrades its service. However, the supply of ISP's, esp. broadband, is not infinite, and if ISP's react in a kneejerk fashion the availability of alternative service could dry up quickly -- and unnecessarily.
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.)