Spam King Lives Large off Others' E-Mail Troubles

An anonymous reader writes "Those who are fighting spam will tell you that one of the most notorious spammers out there is Alan Ralsky. Well, the Detroit Free Press has a very interesting article on him. This guy is about as unrepentant as they come, and he's saying he wants to branch out into delivering pop-up spam via the Windows Messanging service present on most Windows boxes. If you sysadmins out there have been wavering about whether to block spam-friendly networks, read this article, then go to The Spamhaus Project and SPEWS and start getting IP ranges to block." Update: 11/25 12:35 GMT by H : Yep, it's a dupe. Nope, I haven't had my coffee yet.

Comments

Re: Spam King Lives Large off Others' E-Mail Troub

[Dunark]

This guy Ralsky sends a billion spams a day, which has got to be costing the unwilling recipients a huge amount of money in wasted resources and time, but the FBI is busy busting a few people who uncap their cable modems in Toledo Ohio.

Less Investment = More Profit

[e8johan]

The response rate is the key to the whole operation, said Ralsky. These days, it's about one-quarter of 1 percent.

"But you figure it out," said Ralsky. "When you're sending out 250 million e-mails, even a blind squirrel will find a nut."

Has he never figured out that if he spewed out less shit to people not wanting it, he would have to spend less dollars on hardware, bandwidth and personal security.

Also, it looks like he is trying to hide (stealth spam, etc.). Why does he do that as he is claiming that his business is legitimate. Why not admit that he is a shit-bag, sending loads of e-mails nobody wants, eating bandwidth from research and serious commercial sites.

Re:Less Investment = More Profit

[Rinikusu]

Have you not figured out that the millions that he makes makes all that irrelevant? No, really. Hardware is dirt cheap (see beowulf clusters under $1k/node) these days, he's already paying for bandwidth (might as well keep the pipe flooded, unlimited access is great, no?), no one is actually taking shots at him through his windows (yet), hurling bombs through his garage or anything like that. Getting an unlisted number is relatively cheap, and the $50 or so he spends on a new cell phone is PEANUTS to what he really makes (seriously, if you're making $6-10k/WEEK net, does $50 every few months really make a difference on your bottom line?).

Re:What's that address again?

[Chilles]

If someone from that area where to find and post his adress I'd sure take some time to fill in a few "free catalog" requests. Several tons of snail mail spam every day might just annoy him as much as his spam annoys me.

SPAMMERS are inconsiderate neighbours

[QuietYou]

I was living in an apartment complex while I was attending University, and I got on my neighbours last nerve a few times by playing music too loud in my apartment. A couple of times I got a visit from the local Police, kindly informing me that I was disturbing the peace. They had every right to get angry with me. I was disrupting their lives, in one way or another.

Sharing the Internet with SPAMMERS is a lot like living next door to an inconsiderate neighbour. Sure SPAM is "commercial", but just because something is commercial doesn't make it ok. Would it have been ok for me to blast commercial messages from my stereo into my neighbours apartments? I think not. And just because SPAM can be blocked if you don't want it doesn't make it ok either. My neighbours could have worn ear plugs to block out the sound, but they shouldn't have to.

I wonder how Alan Ralsky would feel if a few inconsiderate neighbours moved in next door to him.

Re: Spam King Lives Large off Others' E-Mail Troub

[Christopher_G_Lewis]

Very simple. One act is against federal law, the other act is not.

It's a Good Thing(tm) when the FBI/Police are allowed to only enforce laws that exist.

What we have to do is change the laws. Write (spam :-) your congress person. Call them. Do anything.

During the recent campaign/election I had the opportunity to talk with a couple of candidates. I made sure that I understood their stance on my current pet peeves (H1B, DMCA, Copyrights), and voted accordingly. I also informed them as to *why* I was voting the way I was.

Might not do anything.

Might change the world...