Spammers Busted

Scud_the_disposable_ writes "CNN has posted an article about the "shutting down" of several spammers who sell fake international driver's licenses. These licenses are supposed to win back suspended driving priviledges, and make holders immune to speeding tickets and other traffic violations." What makes me even more sad is that people fell for it. So far today is a slow spam day for me. Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30.

Comments

Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't actually busted for spamming.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad someone else noticed this because that was my first thought.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, it's their right to free speech to piss everyone off by flooding our inboxes...

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Go away, ugly little troll.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I say they were busted for spamming?

huh?

[dynoman7]

Did they bust all the trolls as well? Not a single First Post as of 9:31!

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

first posting isn't trolling, its a fundamental part of the slashdot culture. A successful first poster must be a dedicated slashdot reader, quick on the mouse and able to hold his cool and avoid posting before 20 secs is up. I always drop down to (-1) to see who got FP today, kind of like checking the footy scores, but nerdier.
I've got 3 FP's myself and I'm damn proud of it to.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

F1rst P0sT

Re:huh?

[dipipanone]

Anonymous Coward writes:

I always drop down to (-1) to see who got FP today (...) I've got 3 FP's myself and I'm damn proud of it to.

Just three? But you appear to get it every on every article? Someone else is clearly posting with your user name.

This is good, but..

[Control-Z]

Ok, it's good the FTC is cracking down on illegal/fradulent product spammers. But that still leaves all the spammers who are selling legitimate products (such as all that refinancing crap, I suppose that could be real), and then what about all the spammers from overseas? And the US ones will find a way to base their operations overseas should the need arise. What about sending them from the middle of the ocean in International waters?

We still gotta fix the Internet mail system. It would probably take the support of *shudder* Microsoft in an upcoming version of Windows to affect a major change like that. Or a saavy small company with good PR/marketing.

Re:This is good, but..

[sam_handelman]

I don't want to make a presumption here, but most of the proposed "improvements" in the e-mail system have been bad for ALL of the following reasons:
1) Centralised control allowing censorship. *
2) Ease of central monitering of communications.
3) Proprietary issues.

* I don't see how you could stop spam without enabling whoever made the decision about what was "spam" to censor anyone they wanted.

That said, I'd love to see all those small island nation / crime havens brought to heel. The spam, though, is really a very small issue. Billions of dollars in costs, yes, but compared with all the money launderers and tax cheats doing business out of island nations, it's chump change.

Re:This is good, but..

[swb]

How many spams are for legitimate products? In the financial services category I'd wager that most of them are not legitimate. The closest to "legitmate" I can think of are ads for porn sites, and I wonder how many of them aren't also credit card scams or trojan-spreaders.

Going after the fraud that makes up a majority of spam would have a huge impact I think, and its the one way you can go after spammers without crippling email with restrictions, laws, etc.

The only potential downside I can see to this is that by removing the criminals from spam, it might 'clean up' spam's image to the point that businesses that have stayed out of email marketing due to the association with fraudulent entities might want to get into it if it was seen as more legitimate.

Re:This is good, but..

[tsg]

I don't see how you could stop spam without enabling whoever made the decision about what was "spam" to censor anyone they wanted.

The real way to stop spam without having a central spam authority is to put all the cost of the delivery on the sender. What makes spam so profitable is half the cost of each message is born by the recipient. Someone needs to invent digital postage....

Re:This is good, but..

[timmyf2371]

I don't think we necessarily need a governing body who controls spam, or any aspect of the Internet for that matter.

IMO, what might work would be a redesigning of the STMP and possibly the POP3 protocols or an entirely new protocol. What I would suggest would be:

1. Client-server authentication for all outgoing mail transactions. This would help a great deal with the problem of open relays.

2. A specification to stop the masking of all headers, especially origination IP address and the senders e-mail address. This way, if spammers do continue their tricks, the recipients would have all their details to report to ISPs or local authorities.

3. E-mail applications which allow users to specify whether they want to receive mail using solely the new protocol, or whether the also wish to allow "old" POP3/smtp mail.

Any thoughts?

Tim

Re:This is good, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

On 'fixing the internet mail system'...

If a decent alternative to smtp/current mail format which provided some means of combatting spam was designed, it could become adopted if initially a few open source smtp servers adopted it *in addition* to existing mechanisms (like SMTP).

The servers with it enabled try using the schemes if they can, if not they drop back to existing ones when talking to each other. The messages can be flagged if they came over the new mechanisms so initially it can just be an additional way of spotting non-spam.

As it starts to become more widespread and people start to see the benefits, open source client software could gain it, windows client software written by vendors who understand email could gain it, eventually microsoft are bound to notice it, and then we have it in place.

Of course it has to be good enough, compelling enough and with a decent rfc written for it before it's worth the open source smtp daemons to have it in the first place.

It looks like someone has written a draft for a scheme along the lines of one I was thinking about a while back involving using dns to advertise valid sending servers for domains:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-danisch- dns-rr-smtp-00.txt

Although an alternative to having new 'rmx' records is to layer a verification system over dns in the same way rbls are advertised via DNS. If the sender's ip address is 127.0.0.1 and you're sending a mail from foo.com and smtpverify.foo.com exists then then a lookup could be done on 1.0.0.127.smtpverify.foo.com and the result could indicate whether 127.0.0.1 is authorised to send mail claiming to be from foo.com.

You could even take it a step further and lock it down to authorising whether ips are authorised to send for individual email addresses if that'd be useful to have.

Enough rambling, anyhow.

Re:This is good, but..

[Tri0de]

I beg to respectfully disagree,
IMHO
If they are selling something, or asking for money, then it's probably Spam.

If it's commerce then there is a bit of a difference from speech that should be protected; in America, at least, the intent of the First Admendment was originally to protect political discourse, not advertising claims. Suprrise suprise, suprise that has gotten just a *wee* bit corrupted in the last few hunded years.

So, I hate censorship as much as anyone, but sometimes long for the good ol' days of arpanet on those mornings that I have 200 spams and 150 legitimate emails waiting for me in the inbox.

Re:This is good, but..

[tsg]

I hate censorship as much as anyone

There are already limits on commercial speech. Truth in advertising laws, and laws against telemarketers calling cellphones to name a couple.

Not that I think making spam illegal will help anything. They'll just go offshore. But there's no First Ammendment issue with making it illegal.

Re:This is good, but..

[JaredOfEuropa]

They did not crack down on spammers for spamming, but for selling a bogus product, as someone else correctly pointed out.

Technical measures alone will not cut it, we'll need legislation as well to outlaw spam, and get those laws adopted in as many countries as we can. You'll want a good lock on your door and laws to make burglary a crime...

Re:This is good, but..

[dr_labrat]

Or you co9uls just use an opensource baysian filter like
POPFile
After a bit of training it catches about 99% of the spam I usually get...

Re:This is good, but..

[rastachops]

mod parent up this is a good filter.

Re:This is good, but..

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

But that still leaves all the spammers who are selling legitimate products (such as all that refinancing crap, I suppose that could be real)

It is real. But it is not called "refinancing crap", it is called "foreclosure crap".

Don't you see the multi-million dollar commercials on TV offering incredible mortgages? They'll give you a loan for 125 % of the value of your property! But only if you have bad credit history. No big stack of paperwork. Just a few papers to sign with some microscopic print. (Dynamite comes in small packages!) You can get pre-approved over the phone. etc., etc.

The business model might be something like this...

1. Offer easy to get loans to people with bad credit history. People don't read the fine print.
2. ???
3. People default on the loan. Maybe just problems with one payment.
4. Profit !!! (Or I mean: Foreclose!!!)

Foreclose and get the equity in their house, or some portion thereof. Now they have less money, and worse credit history. So they go to another easy to get refinancing scheeme.

while True { Lather(), Rinse() };

At least, this is my theory on how these work. A big enough percentage must result in foreclosures to make it very profitable. You know the old saying about something that sounds too good to be true.

There is probably a reason that there are few mosdest hoops to jump through to get a mortgage at a real bank. (Although it is really not that difficult.)

This business model is just speculation on my part. But I am somewhat suspicious of refinancing my home based on an offer I received through a spamvertisement. Of cousre, perhaps this says something about the brain power of those who respond to spam?

Re:This is good, but..

[privacyt]

That said, I'd love to see all those small island nation / crime havens brought to heel.

Translation: The Vanuatus of the world aren't capable of running their own affairs, so they should give up their sovereignty and submit to the USA.

Re:This is good, but..

[RT Alec]

Simple solution: have ISP's block egress traffic on port 25. Use your ISP's SMTP server, or get the admin of the server you wish to use to use a different port (e.g. SMTP + SSL on port 465). Imagine the spam that would be stopped if just AOL implemented this!

Re:This is good, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, what might work would be a redesigning ... the POP3 protocols

Thank the I/O Gods you have no actual power, as POP is not the way mail is transfered between hosts.

Uninformed gits like you are the problem.

Re:This is good, but..

[bheer]

I currently use Mozilla's 1.3a Mail's Bayesian filter, and so far it's been very effective. However, for a lot of people who don't run their own mailservers (and hence cannot filter server-side) or are on expensive/slow dialup, the very act of downloading spam onto their clients is expensive. Also, spam wastes bandwidth, which does cost money, despite flat pricing models used by most ISPs.

I think it's sad that the no one from the IETF or the open-source worlds has gotten around to creating a better alternative.

Re:This is good, but..

[wheany]

I second that. It's fairly easy to set up, runs on multiple platforms, and it has a real installer for us point'n'drool Windows folks.

It works as a proxy between your POP client and any POP-servers you want to use. It analyzes incoming messages and classifies them to different buckets. It can either alter the subject of the message or add a X-Text-Classification: -header to be used by your POP client for filtering. And you can have more than two buckets, so it can differentiate between more kinds of mail than just "spam" and "not spam"

And it is free software! OOOOOOOH! But the most important thing is that it works.

Re:This is good, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

First make a law to stop marketing email with Fordged Headers, then close the loophole for theses Spammers that make there money from spam served from overseas ISPs. If they want to spam from china or anywhere else then they have to live there, not just a phony address but have to live there 364 days of the year.

I am sure it could be worked out somehow to stop or make it difficult to live in the US and make money from Spam

Re:This is good, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, you need to be registered with either the Financial Services Authority (for investments), The Office of Fair Trading (consumer credit license - for loans under about £10k), or the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (for mortgages) to advertise these sorts of things. Which one depends on what you are advertising.

Re:This is good, but..

[Felinoid]

Spam for lagit products is rare.
Take the printer toner spam. Lagit right? He's clamming to be an atherised retailer of new cartrages.
Unlikely. Atherised retaillers carry a full line of products.
He's more likely selling referbished cartrages. Recycled cartrages when done badly can damage your equipment.
The loans all look to good to be true.
Need I say more?
Scams everywhere.

Lagit products and services need a steady stream of custummers. Spam only provides custummers for the short term and kills off long term prospects.
Scams don't have long term commitments. They need only produce a one time income.
That's how spam works. Sacraficing long term success for short term proffit.

Re:This is good, but..

[Control-Z]

Filtering is ok as a stopgap measure for geeks, but what needs done is stopping the spam from being sent in the first place.

Re:This is good, but..

[Zebidiah]

Well said! The internet doesn't belong to any 'one' nation.

Who gets to decide which small island is a 'crime haven'?

Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we be happy when the spammers get spammed? Ponder this.

Lex Talionis, the principle of an eye for an eye, is a morally bankrupt code of law we've been moving away from for the past few thousand years, thankfully. It can't deal with the complexities of the modern legal order, and it ignores all proper justifications for systems of punishment: rehabilitation, prophylaxis, etc. It makes an assertion of rigid judgment in an attempt to avoid judgment itself. We can't live in a world without judgment.

Ask yourself this: should we rape the rapist? If not, why not? (Ignore for a moment that we essentially do rape rapists by committing them to so-called "maximum security" prisons where they get systematically brutalized and raped by guards and other inmates.) It's not a morally tenable position to lower ourselves to the level of brutes just so we can vindicate some idea of retribution.

Therefore, ask yourself why we should be happy when the spammer gets spammed? No one should have to endure the pain and annoyance of spam: it's the scurge of the online world. Not even the spammer, who may be in his business because of factors outside his control like debt or bills for an illness in the family, etc. We should be outraged when anyone is spammed, and we should put the full force of the state and the law against the perpetrator no matter who the victim! Picking and choosing among which victims to protect is something the legal order of former barbaric times did. I'd be disgusted if our government returned to those days.

Spam == bad. Victimization == bad. Why do people conflate the two? What kind of giddy moral superiority to you get from seeing anyone hurt?

Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code

[stevejsmith]

If you are referring to that one case where a spammers address was published on Slashdot, it was perfectly acceptable. Why? Simple: the man was not caught. What people were trying to do was call attention to the fact that there need to be laws to stop spam. When we sent massive amounts of letters to the guy's house, it was perfectly legal. That is what needs to be changed. The point was that this man was not doing something illegal, when he should have been.

Another thing: he continues to do it! If a rapist is in jail, they are not raping anybody. This man, however, is probably as we speak signing deals with XXX PENIS XXX ENLARGERS XXX SEVENTEEN INCHES XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!.

Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code

[nightherper]

I don't get any feeling of "moral superiority" from seeing anyone hurt. I just want all spammers shot on sight or in a nice big line-up with a chaingun.

Anyone asinine enough to send spam does not need to be contributing to the gene pool.

Burning Karma makes me feel all prickly inside though...

Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code

[Anonymous Coward]

No one should have to endure the pain and annoyance of spam

you need to get out more, a third of the world is starving...

Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code

[alienw]

If a rapist is in jail, they are not raping anybody.

Are you sure about that?
Stop Prisoner Rape

Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code

[Anonymous Coward]

Of COURSE we should rape the rapists! Why the fuck shouldn't they get a taste of what they put their victims through?

You fucking liberal cocksucking motherfucking god damned son of a whore!

Lex Talionis is a wonderful idea! And I hope you or your loved ones fall victim to a brutal attack (murder, rape, etc.) to help you reexamine your moral code a little bit.

P.S. FUCK YOU!

Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code

[NerdSlayer]

I don't get any feeling of "moral superiority" from seeing anyone hurt. I just want all spammers shot on sight or in a nice big line-up with a chaingun.

The funny thing is, I feel inferior to these guys... I don't have a million dollar house, do you?

Something which I find very ironic is that the spam-wars seem, to me at least, to parallel the US's drug war in many ways. I hate spam, and I do think that it should be illegal to have fake unsubscribe info and spoofed headers.

However, as long as people keep buying penis enlargement pills, people will keep sending spam, the same as the burning down a coca field in columbia won't stop Robert Downey Jr from blowing lines off a stripper's ass.

I think more resources should be spent redefining some sort of authenticated SMTP and educating dumb people that not everything they read is true. Less time wasted with filters and blocking (and god help us, the random social policies of the 10 dorks of SPEWS who inadvertantly block half of the internet from time to time).

So much spam!

[Tyreth]

Sheesh, 81 spam e-mails so far today? I guess I really don't appreciate how much of a problem this is for American's, especially the ones who have been around for a while with the same address.

My e-mail address tends to change every 2-3 years. So far I've had this new one about 5 months perhaps, and only get one spam e-mail every week or so. Of course, I don't know how much of this is because my ISP is doing its part to stop spam.

Nevertheless, this sounds like a small victory. Unless I misunderstand...

Re:So much spam!

[krisguy]

My e-mail address tends to change every 2-3 years. So far I've had this new one about 5 months perhaps, and only get one spam e-mail every week or so. Of course, I don't know how much of this is because my ISP is doing its part to stop spam.

I don't know how much my ISP is doing to stop spam either. That's why I decided to build my own mail server. At least this way if I get spam, I can block the address and/or host with a little change to my access file.
I know that there are better ways to do it, but for the little amount of mail I get, it makes me feel good I can do something to stop the spam.

Re:So much spam!

[PowerKe]

I don't know how much of this is because my ISP is doing its part to stop spam.

You mean you suspect your ISP of filtering your mail without you knowing it? I cannot imagine you want someone to filter your mail without your explicit permission.

Re:So much spam!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, 81 spam e-mails so far today?

Rob's address is posted on a high profile site, and if only 0.01% of us /.ers ever entered his address into some registration form that required an e-mail address, then it's no wonder if he's on every single spammer's list.

Really, I don't think johndoe@somecrypticaddress.com will ever have to deal with an amount of spam, comparable to cmdrtaco@dontspam.slashdot.org.

Since I always enter abuse@aol.com into such forms, I wonder how much spam they get.

Re:So much spam!

[0x0d0a]

Good point.

I'm kind of wondering why someone as high-profile as Rob doesn't automate spam filtering on his public address.

Re:So much spam!

[jellomizer]

Well I am an american and I dont get that much spam on all
16 e-mail addresses. (14 of them are e-mail address that are aliased to me). The trick to keep spam down is simple.
Never Post your e-mail address in newsgroups, message boards, or Irc.
When making your web page avoid using mailto links. and use graphic (jpg, png, etc) to display your e-mail address.
Use a somewhat complicated email address so gussing algorithems wont get it.

Basicly most of the spam I get (about 5 a day) is from the webmaster.
With those 5 a day I forward each one (with all the Received: headers) to uce@ftc.gov. Then after the forward I use my e-mail clients feature and mimmic a bouceback. All this takes a couple of seconds more then just hitting delete but when you can reduce your spam to 4 or 5 a day. then it saves time.

Re:So much spam!

[dattaway]

I made the mistake of mistyping my email address in my newsreader. The mistake was discovered looking through my massive mail.error logs and finding mountains of bogus addresses. Do I really have that many friends in China, Korea, and Latin America? Haven't fixed my email address to this day.

See, there are good reasons for misspilling words!

How do these spammers afford the bandwidth to shovel crap to everyone?

Re:So much spam!

[billburroughs]

Yeah, I mean I installed Sendmail with the defaults and that filters out 99.9% of the spam I get.

Re:So much spam!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's time to drop smtp, and replace it with a better, authenticated mechanism.

Such as...? ...hello?...waiting for an answer...

Re:So much spam!

[TygerFish]

I use a Yahoo mail address and I find that they do a very good job of keeping the tide down below my chin. The downside to this is that they're only willing to do so much for you for free and I'm left having to consider kicking in a few bucks to get a larger, heftier version of my current mailbox with more extensive blocking and filtering routines.

I think that Jellomizer's advice about not posting in newsgroups and using a name that is hard for an algorithm to make out are good ideas, but considering the pace of innovation and the constant warfare between the cleverest programmer working for a spammer and the cleverest programmer working against one, the only way to keep down spam seems to involve filtration routines and intelligent use of your email accounts.

After seeing this thread, I wonder about luck: it's been a long time since anyone's offered to inflate my breasts and stretch my penis on the same day...

Re:So much spam!

[cygnusx]

> My e-mail address tends to change every 2-3 years.

Actually, in the Good Old(tm) Days, most folk with email addresses used to have *one* email address, and stick to it for ages. Then came Hotmail, Yahoo and the like, and suddenly email addresses became free and disposable. I think this is a *big* reason why spam doesn't bother the average Joe and Jane -- too much spam? sign up for a new Yahoo account, and mail entire circle of friends about the change.

Spam only bothers folks who like having a well-known email address: and this is mostly geeks and sundry folk in the IT biz.

Re:So much spam!

[silentbozo]

Trust me. I have relatives who use "free" services. They're pissed off by spam. Doubly so if they have to change their e-mails because of it. Not probably to the same extent I am, because I remember the days before spam, and I have several e-mail addresses I've used for years.

However, it's probably more frustrating for them, because they can't do much other than change e-mails. I at least have the option of filtering at my mailserver in conjunction with stuff like SpamAssassin (and that filter list is getting longer, and longer...)

Re:So much spam!

[cygnusx]

> I have relatives who use "free" services. They're pissed off by spam.

They get pissed off because they get spam on a free account? If they had to actually had to pay for the account, they'd probably be writing to their congresscritters to outlaw spam :-)

Re:So much spam!

[Tyreth]

Some ISP's participate in blocking spam from known open relay hosts. I don't think they'd actually filter much beyond that but they might. I'd be worried about them using apps to try and guess which is spam, but I'm not worried about them blocking known open relay hosts.

Re:So much spam!

[krisguy]

I'm not either, which I found out is what my ISP does plus they subscribe to a spam list for known spammers.

My point it though, I like a more hands on approach to stop it. I don't know why, i just do.

Re:So much spam!

[tequila26er]

> My e-mail address tends to change every 2-3 years. > So far I've had this new one about 5 months > perhaps, and only get one spam e-mail every week > or so. Of course, I don't know how much of this is > because my ISP is doing its part to stop spam.

Hmm... as an owner/operator of a small hosting company, I think that it is irresponsible to filter customer's email without their knowledge, regardless of wether or not it is legal.

Our customers get zero filtering by default, but can have it added on if they request it. Most of our users, as long as they don't utilize a *@theirdomain.com configuration, don't have any complaints.

Anothing thing I will do, more for shits and giggles than anything else, is enter a unique email address for each site that requires one.

For example, let's say foo.com requires my email address for some reason. The email address they get is foo.com@mydomain.com. The email address bar.com gets is bar.com@mydomain.com.

The domain that I use does utilize a *@mydomain.com type configuration and every message filters through my procmail recipes and eventually gets to my inbox or some other folder, often the spam folder.

Now I can see which sites (that claimed never to use my email address) are actually sending spam or selling my address. Once I get spam sent to one of these addresses, I add a rule to my mail server that rejects email sent to that particular address with a "550: DIE SPAMMERS DIE!!!" error message.

As if this isn't all enough, some of the spammers have had the balls to actually send email to postmaster@mydomain.com complaining that my server is "misconfigured" because of the errors they are getting.

In my opinion, my mail server is there for the legitimate use of myself and my customers. If it is rejecting mail from known spammers, yet allows legitimate mail through, it is not "misconfigured" and will stay in it's current state until I decide otherwise.

Re:So much spam!

[Tyreth]

Heh, I love that idea :) I'll be sure to implement it when I get my own domain.

Re:So much spam!

[tequila26er]

Do remember that in order to implement what I have described, you not only need your own domain, but you also need root access to the mail server for said domain.

This basically means that you need your own mail server or need to be very good friends with the sysadmin of your mail server.

I realize that this is a forum for geeks and you may already know and/or have access like I stated above. No offence is intended.

Re:So much spam!

[len_harms]

The weiredist thing happened to me. I had one of those emails I have been using for YEARS. It got to about 50 a week. I figured out that it was 2 companies that were pummeling me with crap.

I decided it could get worse but I didnt use the email account anymore. So I was not to worried. I tried opting out in a different way. I did not opt out directly of the email. I did it off the top of their page. Went from 50 to 2 a week. 3 weeks in and so far its working. I am amazed. Usually when I did things like this the volume went up. What I figure is they are opting out of single mail lists out of the email. Sure I would not get any more from the company that asked for the mailing. But the main spam guys had me on hundreds of lists. I was vauge enough that its working for now.

Got the idea because almost all of them were either going to a 'special numbered' page to opt out, or emailing to the same domain but with a number. Thought it couldnt hurt, and if it made it worse I could just dump the email...

Course it means I just found one that actually does opt out. However there is nothing saying they can not sell my adress to someone else, as verified. But I have a sort reprive.

Now I am SURE it will come back but so far its been very nice only having one or two a week. Now if I could get my hotmail account to do the same thing. But I think spam guys are just dictionary attacking that one.

Re:So much spam!

[Tyreth]

Yep thanks, but as you suspected I did already know this :)

I don't think that spam is the reason

[Krapangor]

for shutting them down.
It's the fact that the advanced driving licences these guys sell enable free citizens to drive around freely, throwing down the chains of the goverment. All these driving restrictions are just irrational restrictions installed by the goverment to ban people form exercizing their human right the drive anywhere they want and how faster ever they want.
It's no coincidence that after 9/11 the number of driving restrictions raised by 236.7 percent, even after the increase of 37.89 percent when Bush became president.
Such laws are just there to get people used to a climate of restriction and oppression where the goverment can do anything they want. In Soviet Russia for example only 50 mph of the streets where allowed and for driving more then 80 miles any from your hometown you needed a special passport.
Does this ring a bell ? Ashcuft anyone ?
Sorry, but this "spam" argument in this case is just another goverment scam to fool people like the moon landing and the SDI system.

Re:I don't think that spam is the reason

[Brandon30X]

In Soviet Russia for example only 50 mph of the streets where allowed and for driving more then 80 miles any from your hometown you needed a special passport.

That is the worst "IN SOVIET RUSSIA" joke I have ever heard.
-Brandon

Re:I don't think that spam is the reason

[smnolde]

Driving is not a right. It is a priviledge. Read your driver's regulation booklet.

People who believe they have a right to drive deserve to have their money taken or thrown in jail for not following the laws of the country they live in.

Re:I don't think that spam is the reason

[Etcetera]

Driving is not a right. It is a priviledge. Read your driver's regulation booklet.

Not that I'm necessarily agreeing with them, but I believe the argument these folks are putting forth is that the "right to travel" IS a basic (inalienable) right and that the states do not have the authority to take it away -- therefore, the administrative regulations from your state's DMV are unconstitutional.

It's certainly a basic right in terms of walking or use of unmotorized vehicles (you didn't need a "horse-rider's permit" or a buggy permit 200 years ago, nor do you need a train-rider's permit, etc... The argument therefore becomes that in today's world, a motor vehicle is as much a mandatory part of daily existance as a horse was back then. Ergo, unless someone is proven to be an unsafe driver or danger to society, people have a basic right to travel using a motor vehicle.

That's the argument.

Re:I don't think that spam is the reason

[gl4ss]

.. joke? what joke? (ok it wasn't that bad, for most people.. but not far from truth you know)

If I was a spammer....

[The Creator]

I whould sell the following service:

Choose the sex of you future child, money back guarentie.

Re:If I was a spammer....

[RealBeanDip]

" I whould sell the following service:

Choose the sex of you future child, money back guarentie."

And it would appear you have the spelling skills to pull it off!!!

Re:If I was a spammer....

[Anonymous Coward]

Only thing is... they do have this service in China. With the proper in-vitro fertilization techniques this is easily achievable.

Re:If I was a spammer....

[meringuoid]

Right, well, I'm setting up in competition. MY system of fixing a child's sex is more reliable, you see. In fact, it's so reliable that I'll guarantee your money back if it fails plus 50% extra in compensation!

Re:If I was a spammer....

[dynoman7]

spelling skills

guarentie...you know...like au-thor-a-tie

So what if they fell for it?

[KDan]

There's really less realistic spam around than "stealth" driving licences... I mean, the people I'm really worried about are those who fall for someone selling them pills that will (all at one time):
1) Stop aging
2) Increase their IQ
3) Increase the size of their penis
4) Make them earn more money NOW

Now the people who fall for that are really in need of psychiatric assistance, and there must be some or the spammers wouldn't bother.

Daniel

Re:So what if they fell for it?

[Angry White Guy]

I don't know about the other ones, but #2 is a perfectly valid e-mail.

Picture this: Jimmbob replies to an email to have his IQ raised. Jimmbob purchases said product, fully expecting to get smarter. Jimmbob, after buying sugar pills for $75, doesn't feel any smarter, cannot grasp how the little man in the fridge knows exactly when he's going to open the door, and realizes that he has been ripped off. It is at that exact moment where Jimmbob has become smarter. As I.Q. points are the agreed-upon measure of intelligence, and intelligence is a fancy word for smartness, ol' Jimmbob has, through grasping the fact that he had been taken advantage of, has dun made himself smarter.

Now lets say ol' Jimmbob has life insurance, and that those weren't sugar pills, but slow acting poison. There goes #1 and #4 right there. I'm not sure what rigormortis does to penis size, but hell, 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

Re:So what if they fell for it?

[len_harms]

The real reason most spam makes even ANY money. Is people are afraid to say no. They are afraid they are missing out on something. They just need to learn that it is junk and say no.

Ive known people who buy stacks and stacks of books from publishers clearing house. Just because they are afraid they might not win the money from the sweepstakes. These are the exact same kind of people buying this junk. Some of them are living social security check to social security check.

If they send out 200k of emails and even 1 percent respond thats 2000 responses. Then lets say 10 percent of those actually buy. Thats 200. at 20 times say 50 bucks for the product. Thats 10000 dollars profit. The cost of the material and sending the email is probably a thousand tops. Thats just 1 mailing...

It quite litteraly is
1. gather underware
2. ...
3. profit

Where step two is SPAM. The economics and the staticstics of it are mind blowing. Not that I like the junk. It actually makes me mad. Because it is not usefull advertising. Its preying on peoples weakness. Then to boot it is usually preying on people who can least afford it.

As we all know,

[shamilton]

Your penis size is directly proportional to the amount of spam you receive.

sh

Re:As we all know,

[wannabe]

SO by that logic, to hear him talk, Taco must be hung like John Holmes.

Re:As we all know,

[SageLikeFool]

I'd say it is more likely your penis size is inversely proportional to the amount of spam you reply to...

spam

[Anonymous Coward]

> today is a slow spam day for me. Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

psst! Maybe you should start giving a fake email address to all those porn sites, pal!

Playing Games you don't understand.

[nuggz]

Many people throw away money like these irrevocable drivers license, Nigerian bank scams, the stock market bubble.

The people doing this are trying to cheat, and beat the system, playing games they don't quite understand.

They deserve to lose their money.

If you try to steal millions from the people of Nigeria, I hope you DO lose your money.
If you want to get an irrevocable license so you can keep drinking and driving and killing people I hope you lose your money (among other penalties).
If you go and throw every penny you have at some complex financial system you can't possibly understand hoping to make a quick buck, you get what you deserve.

People need to take responsiblity for their own actions.

That being said, fraud isn't acceptable and should be punished. But a reasonable person should be able to tell these are scams.

Re:Playing Games you don't understand.

[tsg]

There's an old con-artist saying:

"You can't cheat an honest man."

Re:Playing Games you don't understand.

[Illserve]

I hope you'll keep that perspective in mind if an aged parent of yours is fooled by a get rich quick scheme like this and blows half your inheritance.

Your view only works if you presume that everyone is smart or competent enough to see through such things. Many aren't. That's life. This is why fraud is illegal.

Another point, there's a very slippery slope between blatant fraud like this and more subtle scams that might fool someone as competent as you.

Re:Playing Games you don't understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go and throw every penny you have at some complex financial system you can't possibly understand hoping to make a quick buck, you get what you deserve.

Like the stock market, you mean?

Re:Playing Games you don't understand.

[Deadstick]

It's "You can't HUSTLE an honest man." You can cheat anybody. Hustling is making the other guy think HE'S the one who's cheating.

Short-weighting somebody on a sack of beans is cheating. Selling him speakers that he thinks are stolen is hustling.

rj

Re:Playing Games you don't understand.

[Blkdeath]

I hope you'll keep that perspective in mind if an aged parent of yours is fooled by a get rich quick scheme like this and blows half your inheritance.

I don't buy the old age as an excuse for naivette line of thining.

My paternal grandparents are 80 years old. My maternal grandmother (widowed) is 76 years old. None of the three of them have been hustled out of their money, so my 'inheritance' remains intact. Why is this, you ask? Because they don't fall for get-rich-quick schemes, they don't respond to telemarketters ("If I desire your services, I'll contact you."), they don't open, letalone respond to mailed investment "opportunities", and before making a financial investment they weigh it against their financial situation, they weigh the risks they're aware of and contrast it to the possible rewards, and for that which they aren't sure of they contact their financial advisor.

The fact of the matter is, anybody has the potential to be hustled/swindled out of their money; young or old. It takes logic and reason (often referred to as 'common sense', though I know it to be quite uncommon indeed) to avoid becomming a victim in this case. As usual, the addage "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." comes into play.

If you need me, I'll be firmly entrenched in the "Stupid people deserve to get screwed." camp, toasting marshmallows and hugging my wallet. :)

Re:Playing Games you don't understand.

[nettdata]

There's an old con-artist saying:

"You can't cheat an honest man."


I also thing that "thinning of the herd" is somewhat appropriate as well.

Re:Playing Games you don't understand.

[Illserve]

Someday you'll probably have to come to grips with the realities of senile dementia, whether in yourself or in someone close to you. Blood vessels stop working well at that age and parts of your brain just... die. Lucky for you that you haven't had to deal with it yet.

You will someday though.

Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

I keep reading that 36% of all emails are spam. I can't remember the last time only one out of three emails I received was spam. Who makes up these statistics?

Re:Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't protect your email address. I have had my current one for over two years and I have never recieved a single piece of spam? How? Never post that address on the internet, and never give it to a company when you register for something and you'll find that you don't have a problem.

Re:Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never used my email address to sign up for anything.....and yet I still receive 100-200 spams per day. I think once a spammer gets a hold of an address they re-sell it to other spammers, and they sell it,and so on.

I use my address for business and can't afford to just get a new one.

Re:Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

[myov]

I've had my address for just over 3 years. I receive 1 piece of spam every few months. To minimize spam, I didn't give out my address publically. Instead, I had 2 "throwaway" accounts, which forwarded to my main account. Too much spam, and I'd kill the account. Now, I have my own domain, and each site gets its own email address.

Re:Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

[Anonymous Coward]

I GET IT! So to stop spam, you just don't use your email account at all? Great!

Re:Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30

[green1]

"Never post that address on the internet, and never give it to a company when you register for something and you'll find that you don't have a problem."

too bad it doesn't work that way... that sure HELPS... but it doesn't solve the problem,

I run my own mail server and looking through the logs I get a LOT of spam to addresses that do not, and never have, existed. it's not like I, or anybody else who uses my mail server (I know all those that do) have ever posted these addresses anywhere. they aren't even close to the real addresses used. spamers guess at addresses, and eventually they'll get it... unless your email address is SDADH2146SADG32JHL787HKJKHKJ4390@yourdomain.com (which I don't know about you... but I find that a bit challenging for my friends to remember...)

Great idea

[Joe the Lesser]

What we need is a Fox TV show about this!

'Spam-Busters', naturally with a theme copying Ghostbusters.

I for one know I'd spend at least 3 hours a day watching people sift through IP addresses and make phone calls!

Re:Great idea

[Melchior_of_wg]

Actually, a show where they check out what actually happens if you fall for it would be nice. Nice as in; I would laugh at some of the suckers. ;)

Spamematics

[PhxBlue]

. . .and inversely proportional to the amount of spam to which you actually respond.

Slacker

[jmb-d]

So far today is a slow spam day for me. Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30.

You need to work smarter, not harder, Taco. I'm sure that if you apply yourself, you can come up with, say, a Perl script to send hundreds, or even thousands of spam by 0900 each and every day...

Re:Slacker

[Anonymous Coward]

and as for you, Mr Moderator, who "overrated" me to avoid risking karma - a terrible accident will befall you.

Re:Slacker

[MattCohn.com]

Just enter your address here:
SPAM ME SILLY!
Look at all the satisfied customers!

Re:Slacker

[MattCohn.com]

*cough**cough**cough*

And it seems to be down right now, but should be back soon.

Nuisance Suits

[Omkar]

Anyone know of efforts to stop spammers by pestering them with nuisance suits that they have to defend? Could work, at least until they move abroad.

Or we could just burn them for fuel.

Re:Nuisance Suits

[Rewtie]

I can't recall where I found it, but "somewhere" out there is some supposedly legal text which you can send to those who spam you. In effect, it says if they continue to do so, they are agreeing to pay you X per E-mail, and all fees associated with the collection of said charges. I used to have it on an account that seemed to attract spam... the particular ISP I was using said they could do nothing about it. I never followed up with any of the emails, nor kept any statistics.

Re:Nuisance Suits

[Angry White Guy]

I've sent bills to spammers before. I've even, on a couple of occasions, been paid. Most of the bills were for less than the postage I sent them for. I got a checque for 11 cents from one company, plus a couple of snail mails saying that they won't cut a cheque for less than $20.
One company even sent a registered letter refuting the charges... on a $0.09 access/processing charge!
Some of these guys aren't the brightest (but hey I'm buying stamps too). I'm down $4.65 in postage, but it's a cheap form of entertainment.

Burn the spammers!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an avid user of SpamCop, I've become accustomed to seeing certain repeat spammers who enjoy plugging up my E-mail account. Then I saw this E-mail -- spam, of course -- offering to sell me E-mail address list. The E-mail address to contact for information... from btamail.net.cn: the worst offender of all!

---
We have just released 2 Million freshly extracted Canadian email addresses.

Just for this week, you can download these for only US$29!

Now you can send emails to only people who reside in Canada.

To order yours, please fill in the form below and email it back to ***********@btamail.net.cn
Make sure you put "ORDER" in the SUBJECT line.
---
(addressed blanked out, I don't want to send them more business!)

I know I've sent tonnes of complaints to the ISPs involved with btamail (though SpamCop), but I wonder if there's a more direct or effective approach... especially since I'm certain they're pimping out *MY* E-mail address in their "freshly extracted" batch.

Yeah. I'm bitter.

Re:Burn the spammers!

[Tony Hoyle]

I've come close to blacklisting the entire .cn domain before now... I settled for high scoring rules in SA (basically if it's been via china or korea if there's even a *sniff* of spamminess about it it gets binned).

Re:Burn the spammers!

[arwel]

I already _have_ blacklisted the entire .cn domain, plus .hk, .tw, and .kr, plus every .com and .net I've been able to identify in China. .ar and .br are currently on probation. I don't know anyone in those countries who would have a reason to communicate with me, and life's just too short to waste on spam - I'm getting around 150 spams a day at the moment, and my filters are still only catching around 75% of them...

subjunctive

[Kraft]

FYI:
"If I were a spammer", not was. Expressing doubt.
"I demand you be here tomorrow", not are. Expressing an imperative.
"God save the Queen", not saves. Expressing a wish.

Some would say that "If I was xxx" is correct in spoken English. Up to you.

The subjunctive case is a gem in the English language. I'm by no means an expert (spot the mistake in this post!), but I think it's a bit of shame that the subjunctive is dying.
more info.

Re:subjunctive

[xintegerx]

FYI:
Some would say that "If I was xxx" is correct in spoken English, but it is up to you.
Not:
Some would say that "If I was xxx" is correct in spoken English. Up to you.

The last sentence is a fragment, and does not define a subject as clearly as it should. It also has no verb, which it probably should have in written english (and the absence of which is partly the reason why "Up to you." is a fragment.)

HA!

Re:subjunctive

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Well, you didn't end your last sentence with a period! Also, the phrase inside your parenthetical structure is not a complete sentence.

Re:subjunctive

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I can say that I have no intention of getting into a grammar-, or flame-war with anyone, it is only right that I note here that the one pointing out the error has, in fact, not capitalized 'English,' which is, as everyone knows, necessary. :-D

Re:subjunctive

[dipipanone]

"If I were a spammer"

I'd spam them in the morning,
I'd spam them in the evening,
All over this land,
I'd spam about Viagra,
I'd spam about penis enhancement,
I'd spam about the love between a brother and a sister, All-all, all over this XXX adult website.

Ahem. Sorry about that but I couldn't resist...

Spam should be 100% legal

[erroneus]

Provided they use only their own resources (i.e. they do not tax other people's hardware and bandwidth) and are regulated the same way that all other marketters are regulated. This means they can't "hide" themselves behind forged headers or other information designed to deceive the reader/recipient.

After that, they become a legitimate marketting force. Of course I don't expect SPAM to survive in such an environment, but I think it should be legal under those conditions.

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[tsg]

In that case spam would be on the same level as junk snail mail. It doesn't cost me anything and, unless it's interfering with my real mail, I ignore it and throw it out. That I could live with. Hell, email advertisers could even subsidize the internet making it cheaper for me to get service. That I could certainly live with.

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[LostCluster]

Provided they use only their own resources (i.e. they do not tax other people's hardware and bandwidth) and are regulated the same way that all other marketters are regulated. This means they can't "hide" themselves behind forged headers or other information designed to deceive the reader/recipient.

Unfortunately, those rules are simply in contradiction to SMTP. SMTP requires that the receiver provide the server to hold the message, and there is no way to authenticate the from and reply addresses.

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[Click 0 Nett]

I agree. Spam is just another form of advertising that is perfectly legal.

However, it becomes illegal the moment the spammer attempts to bypass an obstacle put in place by the receiver for the purpose of blocking spam. If you are a door-to-door salesman, knocking on my front door is fine. But if the front door is locked or I'm not answering, it does not mean you can go through the rear bedroom window.

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[colinleroy]

I do want spammers to continue forging headers. They do so in a really stupid manner which allows Spamassassin to directly trash all of the forged-headers spam.

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[Steve B]

Provided they use only their own resources (i.e. they do not tax other people's hardware and bandwidth)

In other news, it was proposed that murder be made legal if nobody got killed.

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[AndroidCat]

"Legal spam" wouldn't scale. What would happen if you had thousands of door-to-door salesmen knocking on your door everyday? Thousands of salesmen isn't possible in the real world (cost to hire them, travelling time, etc) but spam has no such limitation.

Certainly if they couldn't forge headers, you could block or filter them, but that would still be a hell of a lot of spam!

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[sjames]

I once guestimated that if each legitimate business wanted to advertise by email once a year, it's average over 3000 spams a day per person.

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[AndroidCat]

Once a year? heh-heh. There's a heavy bag of flyers stuffed through my door for the supermarket, hardware store, Canadian Tire, etc, ever week. And it costs them to print and have a crew flyer the building. Imagine if they could do it for almost nothing (for them)?

And then there's the pizza chains, chinese food, KFC, and on and on. If it was legal and cheap, why not? And the mom-n-pop italian place around the corner from me? why not? (I doubt they'd have a geographic database, so you're getting an advert from them too -- and me from your local places.)

To seriously pick 3000/day as a ballpark figure would require stronger drugs than Hunter S. Thompson would touch. I know you were using one email per year to show how bad it would be even if everyone sent the just slightest amount of spam, but a lot of people don't stop to think about the fact that once a year isn't going to happen. Even only once a week is optimistic. Ouch! I wouldn't want to try block 156,000 emails a day, never mind the overhead for filtering.

Of course, the Big Boys would make sure that only spam from DMA members was legal. Mom-n-pop would have to join. Gee, I wonder if they could afford it?

Re:Spam should be 100% legal

[sjames]

That is true. 1 per year was specifically chosen as an absolute bare minimum to expect if spam lost it's sleasy reputation. Essentially I used that figure since it's hard to argue that it would be any less tahn that, and 3000 spams a day is more than enough to render email useless.

I agree that once a week and in some cases once a day would be quite common considering how persistant the credit card people are with dead tree mail.

mph?? wrong units...

[xintegerx]

In Soviet Russia, kilometers drive people per hour!

Tsk Tsk CmdrTaco

[Kernel Corndog]

I thought for sure, with as much spam as you get, you'd be the first one to try out the bayesian mail filters that Paul Graham wrote about. One of the ones he suggested was CRM114 With a reputed catch rate of 99.8%, do you really not want to try it that much?

Re:Tsk Tsk CmdrTaco

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you'd also think that he'd want his site to be standards compliant, or gif-free, or a Mozilla user (now with Bayesian spam filtering), or... Well, you're getting the idea.

Just 81 spam today?

[stevenbdjr]

What's the matter, Taco, never heard of SpamAssassin?

Re:Just 81 spam today?

[AssFace]

that is just what I thought.

I installed SA and went from around 500 spam e-mails a day down to 3 or so now daily - and those are likely going to get nailed once the monthly learning script is run to teach it how to better filter.

I have v2.50 that I got around Jan 7th, and there have been many changes in the changelog since then, so I will probably "upgrade" at the beginning of Feb and see if that helps more as well.

Re:subjunctive confusion

[volpe]

FYI:
"If I were a spammer", not was. Expressing doubt.

Yes, that's an example of the subjunctive mood. But it doesn't express doubt. It expresses a hypothetical situation that is not, in fact, the case.
The other two cases are examples of the imperative mood, not the subjunctive mood.

As for whether "If I was xxx" is correct, the answer is that it depends. If it's not expressing a hypothetical situation known not to be the case, it can be correct.

mod up parent

[DABANSHEE]

Fact is the greedy deserve ripping off

It's karma when the greedy get ripped off by 'get rich quick' schemes

And this is why...

[foxtrot]

We will probably always be stuck with spam.

I keep looking at it and saying, "Who buys this stuff? Who's so stupid to buy stuff from a spammer?" I look at it and wonder how spamming could possibly be profitable. ...and then we find people who believe they can buy a drivers' license that'll reinstate their revoked one and make them immume to speeding tickets.

As P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute, and I get the feeling if he were around today, he'd find lots of money in spam...

Re:And this is why...

[powerlinekid]

Barnum didn't say that. Basically some guy (can't remember his name, check google) was showing the skeleton of a giant (or something along those lines). Barnum made his own "giant" and started showing it around saying his was the orginal. Eventually people believed him and the other guy was screwed. So it was that guy that said "Theres a sucker born..." in regards to P.T. Barnum. I know my post is rather lacking on details (although the plot of the story is true) but you can do a search on google and have all the details you want.

81 Spam Messages?

[SpaceRook]

OK, I have to ask: what the heck are you guys doing with your email addresses that make you get 81 spam messages before noon? Publishing it on a billboard in Times Square? I've had my current email for 3 months. I don't get ANY spam. And I'm a guy whose used that address at Amazon, Drugstore.com, Yahoo, eBay, and a million other places. The only place I haven't used it is on Usenet.

The only email account I have that gets spam is my Hotmail account. I call this my "slutty" email because it's the one I use when I KNOW providing an email address will give me spam.

Re:81 Spam Messages?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call this my "slutty" email because it's the one I use when I KNOW providing an email address will give me spam.

I call that "My Boss's E-Mail Address".

Always a fun thing.

Re:81 Spam Messages?

[rograndom]

OK, I have to ask: what the heck are you guys doing with your email addresses that make you get 81 spam messages before noon? Publishing it on a billboard in Times Square?

It may not be exactly like putting his email address on a billboard in Times Square, but he does, you know, run slashdot. His address shows up a lot on these pages that are a good target for havesters and he does reach a large audiance, of whom a small percentange might be vindictive towards him, for whatever reason, and sign him up for all sorts of nasty stuff.

Re:81 Spam Messages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You've had your email address for three whole months?

When you run a website, you generally have one or more email addresses on the site. Spammers *will* harvest those addresses, as well as the info listed in your WhoIs entry. And switching addresses every few months isn't a very good solution for many of us. I'm sure that works for some people, but it depends on how you use the net, and what you use it for.

I shouldn't have to hide my address, and I shouldn't have to dig through 100's of spams a day (which is my norm) to get to the legitimate mail.

Re:81 Spam Messages?

[Phroggy]

OK, I have to ask: what the heck are you guys doing with your email addresses that make you get 81 spam messages before noon? Publishing it on a billboard in Times Square? I've had my current email for 3 months. I don't get ANY spam.

Only three months? That's why. If you're reasonably careful, it takes awhile. Try keeping an e-mail address for five years.

Spammers are now sending out spam with one of my e-mail addresses as the return address (I know because I've been getting "user unknown" bounces). Not really anything I can do about it.

Re:81 Spam Messages?

[Anonymous Coward]

bwaaa ha ha ha ha

.....ha

Clarification on International Drivers License.

[gibbsjoh]

An international drivers license is usually only issued on the basis of having a _valid_ national license. Here in the UK you must take a valid UK license to the Post Office (or the AA) to get an International License.

It is also not valid for the country of issue, and I'm betting most insurance companies won't accept one when insuring your vehicle. So basically, I'd need some form of valid foreign license to get an international license that I could use in the USA, and even then I'd be driving without insurance, which I know is illegal in most if not all states.

So I don't see why anyone should fall for this scam...

Re:Clarification on International Drivers License.

[Deadstick]

As nearly as I can tell, the only function of the International Driver's License is to translate the information on a person's home license into one of several languages that are recognized by driving authorities everywhere. As you say, one has to have a valid home license to get an IDL, and the IDL states that it is valid only when accompanied by that home license.

When I've rented cars in Germany and France, the agencies there wanted only to see my US license, and hadn't the slightest interest in my IDL.

rj

Re:Clarification on International Drivers License.

[Happy go Lucky]

An international drivers license is usually only issued on the basis of having a _valid_ national license. Here in the UK you must take a valid UK license to the Post Office (or the AA) to get an International License.

A lot like the US. IDL's are issued here by the AAA on proof of a valid state-issued license. If Colorado were to suspend mine tomorrow, I'd be ineligible for a real IDL.

It is also not valid for the country of issue, and I'm betting most insurance companies won't accept one when insuring your vehicle. So basically, I'd need some form of valid foreign license to get an international license that I could use in the USA, and even then I'd be driving without insurance, which I know is illegal in most if not all states.

Very illegal in mine. We're starting to jail people for it. Christ, all it takes to be legal is $25K in liability coverage.

FWIW, I've been told by both British Airways and Qantas that the UK and Australia will accept foreign DL's (like mine) just so long as they're printed in English, which would lend credence to someone's statement above that the IDL serves mainly as a translation of the driver's original DL.

Speaking now as a traffic cop: Any time someone presents me with an IDL, I want to see his original DL. If that one feels funny, I ask for a passport. It's amazing how many people attend school here, get themselves revoked DUI or suspended for FRA (uninsured vehicle), and try to drive on an IDL.

Mexican and Canadian DL's are now valid here in Colorado. My only issue is that it's impossible to check validity on a Mexican DL, and that plenty of cops can't read Spanish. And both nationalities can legally enter the US without passports, so not much point in asking a Canuckistanian for one.

So I don't see why anyone should fall for this scam...

Look at the rest of your spam. Mine are for penis enlargement drugs, 419 scams, and human growth hormone (either illegal controlled substances, or fake, with no way to know for sure). People who buy from spammers are even dumber than spammers.

Anagrams

[Anonymous Coward]

The way most /.'ers talk, you don't want a means to stop spammers. You want a means to spot spammers.

Solution to Subscription Emails

[0x0d0a]

The only email account I have that gets spam is my Hotmail account. I call this my "slutty" email because it's the one I use when I KNOW providing an email address will give me spam.

Occasionally, I run across email-address-requiring services too (IBM's free Linux compiler, Yahoo mail account, etc). If you only need to get one email, which contains a password or activation key or something, you have a pretty good alternative.

I run a mail server on my workstation. I have it set up with a couple of aliases that point to my username. So I feed Intel alias1@myworkstation.myisp.net. Sure, no MX entry for my "domain" myworkstation.myisp.net, but Intel tries directly delivering the email to my machine. I snag the email when it comes in in a few minutes. If I want to, I can either leave the alias around to see whether Intel is selling their mailing list (if I start getting spam on that alias), or delete it, so that any future mail simply gets bounced.

Furthermore, spam list sellers verify email addresses by looking for valid MX entries. I don't have one, so my used email address tends to simply get dropped.

OT: Nigerian spam --with imagination!!!

[MickLinux]

okay, this is slightly off-topic, but I just got this email spam, and it conforms to the Nigerian spam formula -- but look at the reason!

At least they are making it mildly interesting. I, for one, though, am still convinced that the Nigerian spam's popularity is because it is used to fund Al Qaida's "exterminate non-muslims" campaign, but I wouldn't ever be able to prove it.

But that would also explain the jump in Nigerian spam that I seem to get at different times.

---CONCENTRATED EXTRACT OF SPAM BELOW---

I am Andrew Purkis, chief executive of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.
Diana, Princess of Wales, devoted herself to a host of domestic and international issues, such as disadvantaged children, the homeless, HIV/Aids, and landmines... ...Shortly before her death on 31 August 1997, Princess Diana became an ardent and effective crusader against landmines. She gave numerous... ...In 1997, we opened an account with a security company in the United State of America and we make a deposit of twenty million pounds that was realized from a landmine campaign in Angola and Bosnia. ....

You mean the licenses weren�t for real?

[andres32a]

Dam! I just lost my 375 bucks!
Well, going to take my herbal viagra know...

Ever Try 'Postini'?

[core plexus]

" So far today is a slow spam day for me. Only 81 spam, but its only 9:30."

Since my ISP started using Postini I only get one or two, and as soon as they catch one the rest of the same type are blocked. I can still log into the message center where the suspicious messages are held, and review them just in case. I'd never heard of it before then, and have no interest in the company other than paying .50/month for extra spam filtering.

DIY hack for Orange smartphone revealed

Only so little spam??

[bdigit]

Fellow /.'ers it seems we have not subscribed CmdrTaco to enough mailing lists. Can we please help him with his spam problem and make sure he is atleast getting 500 peices of spam a day. I apologize on behalf of the /. community for your lack of spam today and I and other members will do our best to make your days of reading email more enjoyable.

Software exists already

[michelcoene]

Make sure every hop is authenticated. As soon as one hop isn't (old SMTP server), mark the header with "source uncertain". SPAM-filters can then be more restrictive on these ones and let authenticated mails through more easily.

Professional Association of English Majors

[Anonymous Coward]

...everyone wants to be a member.

One may be a charter member, but that doesn't mean you will not be working in McDonald's because you are unable to find a job working with other losers who conjugate nouns for a living and constantly make fun of other people's grammar.

I DISAGREE BECAUSE I ENUNCIATE AND I'M WELL READ!

Perhaps, but you are still a loser.

So I suppose you've identified a few of my own grammar mistakes. That's quite well and good; perhaps I'll throw some change into your cup next time I pass you on the sidewalk.

Right...

[Kjella]

Provided they use only their own resources (i.e. they do not tax other people's hardware and bandwidth)

...and most important of those people, my hardware and my bandwidth. And no, it's not for sale/lease so you can spam me. So there's no such thing as "legal" SPAM.

Kjella

I've done some investigation

[rcs1000]

And discovered that most of the ads for porn sites are genuine.

I've also discovered that I could increase the size of my... you know what... for only $49. Who says spam's not useful?

international driver's licenses

[anonymous loser]

If you have a US driver's license, you can get an international driver's license just by going to your nearest AAA office, filling out a form, and paying a small fee. You then get a little booklet you have to carry around with your regular license, which basically amounts to a bunch of pages that say "this is a driver's license" in several languages.

And the FTC doesn't pursue the following

[cluge]

Spam I have recieved that HASN'T been pursued, and I would gather is probably making false claims, and may be fraud. A small sample of the SPAM I have recieved today (just subject lines)

Increase your penis size by 2" to 3"!

(If my penis grew 1 mm for every add I had recieved I could have sex with people in other states, and not leave home

A business proposistion

Involves me paying them 10k and me getting nothing. Although the letter says I'll get either gold, or millions in cash. Somehow I don't believe them

I saw you bio on-line

I don't HAVE a bio on line, and no I don't want to look at your russian web cams

Re: Your computer has a virus

No, my computer is a linux machine, it doesn't have a virus and your bullshit copy of norton wouldn't help if it did

news,Married women await you!

Somehow I don't think my signifigant other cares. In fact if your married, and your trying to get me to cross state lines to have sex with you for money, isn't that illegal?

Add about 10 more messages to the list that got through(after spam assasin tagged and discared the usual slew). I still believe that the law should be changed so that myself, and a few close "friends" can introduce spammers to baseball bats. Only when you take the consequences out of the cyber world and bring it into the real world will SPAM start to slow down. Baseball bats are an excellent choice of a good "real world" consequence. Think I'm too harsh? then you have never had to administer a large mail server and deal with the "results" of spamming day in or day out.

Re:And the FTC doesn't pursue the following

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact if your married, and your trying to get me to cross state lines

Your message makes no sense.

Re:And the FTC doesn't pursue the following

[Anonymous Coward]

My lunix computer can't get a virus beause its so RAD!#E%$^!E$!$%#$!$&%!%!% mmwahahahahagahahah

Re:And the FTC doesn't pursue the following

[cluge]

Moving a minor across state lines to solicit sex is a felony in all states.

On a related note: My way of How Not To Get Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I get very, very little spam. Actually, the last spam I got was on 12/30/2022, wanting me to do business with some Nigerian Oil Company.
This was not always the case. At some point early last year some schmuck must have put my well guarded private address I use since 1995 onto a fucking spamlist, and sold it around. That pissed me off quite a bit.
To make a long story short: Find out who really sent the message, find out what is spamvertized. And then complain, complain, complain. Sending educated abuse mails to Tier 1 ISPs can have quite some effect. Some sites where actually shut down.

Hopefully someone considered me a trouble maker, and took me off the list actually. Maybe the trick is to annoy them more than they annoy you.

-- Posting as A.C. to keep my account spam free

These aren't legal driver's licenses

[Raunchola]

As the article stated, international driver's licenses are just translations of your existing driver's license. You can get them at most travel agencies.

And look, here's some further reading!

SPAM will go away - eventually

[theirpuppet]

SPAM will lose it's ability to sell and be such a profitable enterprise once the majority of people currently using email move on to old age.

Think about it. The reason a SPAM'er can survive is because of people who just don't know any better. As soon as the younger generations take over, SPAM'ers will have a much harder fight to survive, to keep ahead of the legal system, and to just make any money.

The younger generations grew up knowing that an unsolicited email is not going to help you enlarge your male piece 10 fold, or your female pieces more perky or whatever. They know that the Nigerians begging for your help with their inheritances are a scam, just like everything else in their inbox. They won't buy into it.

Of course some people will buy into it, always. But this number of people will greatly diminish over the years until SPAM'ers have nothing left to do but find day jobs or report to the Unemployment Department with words such as 'I pissed people off for a living. Remember that evil SPAM thing that used to be so big? That was me'.

Re:SPAM will go away - eventually

[Anonymous Coward]

YOu'd think so, but then I saw a page that was ranting about spam. It included some examples. Turned out the guy had *lots* of emails asking him for more information - about the spam.

When you read them, many of them are young guys, 13, 15 etc. They are too naive to know that life doesn't work like that.

What Taco Was Truly Up To

[Anonymous Coward]

81 spam messages before 9:30??? How much porn does one have to look at the get that much spam??? Does your wife know Taco???

I've only gotten 18 since 12:00am

[Mustang Matt]

But then again I blocked mail from the entire 66.197.x.x subnet.

I got one word for ya:

[NFW]

Whitelist.

OK, maybe that should be two words, but it works really well. Every email coming into my system gets its From address checked against a list of approved correspondents. If there is a match, the message is delivered normally. If there's no match, a message goes out asking them to confirm that they are not a spammer. Upon receipt of confirmation, the original message is delivered and the address is added to the whitelist.

So far it appears that the nigerian bank scammers are the only spammers who a) use valid From or Reply-to addresses and b) read their responses. In the few months that I've been using a whitelist, I've seen two or three of those scams, and nothing else.

There's nothing centralized or proprietary about it.

It's simple, but it works very well, because spammers (with VERY few exceptions) do not personalize their from addresses, and practically cannot, because of the bandwidth it would require. They also do not read the replies their spam generates; again, there's a bandwidth problem, not to mention that they know very well that 99% of the replies probably consist of little more than expletives.

With a bit more work, it could be far more secure. For example, the filter could bounce anything not digitally signed by someone in the whitelist, and a key-signing distributed web of trust could be used to keep out spammers. That could be done with an infrastructure change, or it could be done with widespread adoption of PGP, GPG, or Zendit -style encryption software (which would be a good thing anyhow). (Disclaimer: I work for Authora, makers of Zendit.)

This doesn't solve the bandwidth problem, but it does solve the waste-my-time problem, which is good enough for me.

Re:I got one word for ya:

[Blkdeath]

Whitelist.

I dislike whitelists for several reasons;

• Mailing lists. Improperly configured whitelists can (and very often do) wreak havok on even low-traffic lists. (Infinite loops of whitelist responses to whitelist messages in response to ... )
• Potential employment / other avenues of potential gain. Often times, these people will be annoyed by having to confirm their identity in order to inform you of what could be a once in a lifetime opportunity.
• Updates / notes from friends who aren't terribly computer-savvy. Such lists can not only confuse them, but can result in lost e-mails if they send them from, say, a web-based account they don't check regularly.
• Personal taste. I greatly dislike having to essentially request permission to correspond with someone. I have upwards of a dozen e-mail addresses which I'll use at any given time depending on the hat I'm wearing, and this would require my requesting posting privileges for each of them.

As has been pointed out already, Bayesian filtering is the way of the future. You put up with SPAM for a limited amount of time and then it learns your routines and filters it for you. You don't inconvenience anybody save for yourself (initially, and the cost of downloading the SPAM, a cost incurred by the use of whitelists anyways), and they're not prone to causing public nuissance.

Also as you've alluded to, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to forge the From: identity of someone already in your whitelist; something that happens quite frequently. A popular SPAM harvesting technique is to harvest mailing lists and use the names found in this list as the From: and To: address, effectively sending people SPAM 'from' themselves, or 'from' people with whom they correspond on a regular basis.

As to digitally signed e-mails; that's fine and good for the 2% of Internet users who are remotely capable of even understanding such a concept, but I have to say, for most of the people with whom I correspond (many of them clients) this is simply not an option.

Re:I got one word for ya:

[NFW]

Also as you've alluded to, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to forge the From: identity of someone already in your whitelist; something that happens quite frequently.

And as I said, they would need more bandwidth to tailor the From address on every message they sent. Way more. Right now they inject a single copy of the message with a long list of addresses in the "RCPT TO" SMTP command, and the relay owner eats the bandwidth. Customizing the From address would require the spammer to send one full copy of the message for each recipient. I'm guessing that's a 10x or 100x increase in bandwidth demands, maybe more.

More significantly, whitelist-approved From addresses will not scale to the proportions of spammers' mailing lists. It's one thing to scrape a million addresses from usenet, it's another to discover a whitelist-approved From address for every victim's address. This does not worry me one bit.

Als for mailing lists, they are addressed up front in the procmail script that implements my whitelist system. They get delivered before the whitelist gets examined. I'm on more lists than I can count, and I have yet to send a confirmation request to a list or to someone on a list. The only errors so far have been in the form of mailing list messages erroneously delivered to my daemon folder.

If someone can't be bothered to confirm a message, I can't be bothered to read their message. That is a feature, not a bug.

I look at it this way... How much spam am I willing to put up with in order to prevent friends from having to (gasp) send one extra message when they switch email addresses? Answer: none.

Re:I got one word for ya:

[Blkdeath]

I look at it this way... How much spam am I willing to put up with in order to prevent friends from having to (gasp) send one extra message when they switch email addresses? Answer: none.

But it's not one friend, or one e-mail message; if everybody implemented whitelists you'd have to send dozens, possibly hundreds of messages every time you changed your address. This would most likely drive people insane to the point where software would be written to automate this task, and lo and behold, the SPAMmers now have tools with which to defeat whitelists.

Whitelists may work for some people as a small, niche tool for defeating SPAM, but it's not scalable. Bayesian filters are 100% scalable, and are as-yet all but impossible to defeat, once trained.

Bayesian filtering comes with all the advantages of a whitelist without any of the inherrant disadvantages.

Re:I certainly hope she doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

From the sounds of your post, I definitely hope my wife doesn't know Taco

I'd never know I could enlarge my penis w/o /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that doesn't think spam is that big of a deal? I've never recieved any significant amount of spam because I just don't give out the e-mail address I actually use.

If I have to provide an e-mail address that isn't used for validation, my address is always something like sdakfjlsdfkh@skdf.com.

If I have to buy something or get validated, that's what Hotmail's for. Color me indifferent about the prospects of Microsoft's servers being inundated with unwanted e-mail.

Easy to get a job

[phorm]

Remember that evil SPAM thing that used to be so big? That was me'.
Oh, perfect... there's a fresh job opening at the salt mines in the Sahara, accmodation included! Be sure to pack lots of SP-10000 sunblock, a canteen, and some cool clothes. Bruno and Vito will now escort you home and then to the airport.

Have a nice day

Re:I don't think that spam is the reason -- OOPS

[Etcetera]

do not have the authority to take it away
- should read -
do not have the authority to take it away without due process, just like taking away the right to life, liberty, etc...

In fact, you could say that the "right to travel" is one of the meanings of the right of "liberty".

81 spam?

[seattle2napa]

All I can say is if you get 81 spam a day you must be an idiot, or out looking for it.

I frequently post to newsgroups, send a lot of email, use my real email address all over the place on legitimate sites and I get between 0-2 spam per day (usually right around 1). For newsgroup posts I always change the reply-to so that it has something extra to be stripped out, and always spell it out in my signature, e.g.

foo at diddle dot com

rather than foo@diddle.com

Other than these mild techniques, I pretty much use my computer as intended.

So how is it that you manage to get so much spam?

Re:81 spam?

[billDCat]

Try registering for a domain name. You have to use a legitimate email address for that, and they are on public record. I got one or two a day until I registered for a domain. Now I get around 30 a day. Could be worse but still annoying.

I find that the spam filtering on Mac OS X's mail program is great, though. I believe that it uses Bayesian filtering as well, and now I only get the occasional email that slips through.

Re:81 spam?

[greenius]

Surely, the point is you shouldn't need to obfuscate your email address when posting it in a public place, or to set up fake hotmail accounts.

For example, If I advertise sometime in the classifieds of the local paper I can put my real phone number and don't expect to get added to any direct mailing lists because of it.

If I put my real physical postal address on my web site I won't get inundated with extra junk mail.

But put your real email address anywhere on the web/internet and you start to receive spam in a very short time, the majority being for illegal items (if not they should be, e.g. fake univerity degrees) or things that are not applicable in the country I live (e.g. refinancing loans).

Re:81 spam?

[seattle2napa]

Well, I've registered at least 8 domains (all active today), all using the same email address. I'm sure that's where some of my spam comes from, but it's not on the order of tens per day...

Re: I didn't get any.

[Anonymous Coward]

I blocked the entire Internet.

Oh wait..

In Soviet Russia...

[cliveholloway]

... the jokes tell you.

sorry :)

cLive ;-)

death to all spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck em spammers till none is left...

death death death

spammers die in dishonor...

Re: No we're simplying giving him feedback

[fearless_froggie]

The law is not giving the spammer the required feedback so he can learn that what he's doing is wrong. We're simply providing him with that feedback. And no, we're not taking an eye for eye, or a life for a life. We're just sending him truckloads of SPAM!

Some people call it karma. Send out sh*t. Get back mountains of sh*t.

rriiivvvittt

I got an international drivers license

[sakusha]

I was going on a trip to Japan so I got an International Driver's License at AAA. IIRC it cost $15. My trip fell through so I never used it. A license sure wouldn't be worth any more than $10 or $20 to anyone, let alone through a spammer. And it doesn't get you out of tickets or anything, it's just money down the drain unless you really need a foreign license.

Stock market

[nuggz]

No, the stock market is a simple system.
People post shares of a company, you can buy them, or you can sell your own.

The companies you buy are the possibly complex parts, and if you don't have an idea how they work and will make you money, don't buy.

Her is a list of Spammers Privat E-mail enjoy..

[JOW]

DHS (The Distributed Home Spamming DHS Club)

Ok, I did not know what this was, but as my servers are under a storm of port scans from Send-Safe send-safe and I was trying to find out some information I found this DHS DHS Web site Scary , who will be the first that Put them out?

Also it clear that they are using slow and bad admin's to run their "bizz." UUNET/Worldcom is the DHS Club's current Internet connectivity provider. They have a reputation of failing to aggressively enforce their posted Terms of Service.

Oh, why not drop the DHS members an E-mail E-mail address list

Are we losing the fight Spam software ??

Lex Talionis IS a morally bankrupt code

[crimson30]

Absolutely. We need something harsher... spamming the spammer is hardly enough. Nor is raping the rapist.

What we REALLY need is some Clockwork Orange type justice.

No, I am not kidding and no I don't care about my karma...

But it was greed htat sucked them in

[DABANSHEE]

The greedy wanting money for nothing.

So its karma

spammers

[jerrylaw]

It's too bad that people fall for the crap that spammers produce; it's also, if you think about it, just due for people who were willing to use fake driver's licenses. I have always had only one way to deal with spammers; just press the delete button. Never reply for any reason, because this just confirms your e-mail address. The delete button is there for a reason; use it! The header alone usually tells you an e-mail is spam. I have been doing this for as long as I've had my computer, and do you know hoe many spam letters I get now? None. Jerrylaw

Posible solution

[sjames]

Of cousre, perhaps this says something about the brain power of those who respond to spam?

There's an answer. Spammers do it because of that fraction of a percent that buy the 'product'. Remove that and spam goes away.

About one spam a month with fatal suggestions (use drano for a healthy colon for example) for 6 months should kill that fraction of a percent off, and with it, the motivation to spam.

Last Post!

[alpg]

We knew from experience that the essence of communal computing, as
supplied by remote-access, time-shared machines, is not just to type
programs into a terminal instead of a keypunch, but to encourage close
communication.
-- Dennis Ritchie

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...