MonsterHut Jammed for Spam

How long by tmark · 2003-01-23 02:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Before all these spam companies just move off-shore to avoid litigation ?

Re:How long by PhxBlue · 2003-01-23 02:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

A better question is, would it do them any good to move offshore? Skylarov (sp?) lived in Russia, and the American government still managed to yank him into their "justice" system.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:How long by Zeinfeld · 2003-01-23 03:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Before all these spam companies just move off-shore to avoid litigation ?
Have you been to Grand Cayman? Would you want to actually live there?
Moving the data center operations of a spamhaus offshore does not prevent prosecutors charging owners living in the US. If the criminal activity takes place in the US they can prosecute in the US.
It is quite likely that the offshore havens can and will prosecute also. Hosting SPAM senders does not bring anywhere near the amount of revenue that the traditional offshore industries of banking and shipping do. Any country that is in the offshore game is anxious to ensure that it does not draw unwanted attention to its current scams by allowing high profile criminal activity. You don't get much more high profile than businesses that anoy millions of people an hour.
Offshore havens are not by and large lawless, in fact the cayman islands sells itself on the fact that as a result of its British administration it has a government and banking system that have very high integrity. Cayman is not going to do anything to threaten that reputation and its existing business. So that leaves the spam senders with places like Congo, Nigeria and Afghanistan where the civil government has collapsed (though few 'libertarians' seem to want to live inthose countries).
Moving data centers offshore is in any case a high cost and would be a significant barrier to entry for new spam senders. If you have to move to a jurisdiction where the civil government is corrupt costs are going to rapidly spiral out of control.
The 'regulatory arbitrage' stuff is all about ideological commitment rather than analysis.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

Very easy solution by Epistax · 2003-01-23 02:26 · Score: 0, Interesting

To end all spamming once and for all, do this simple tactic: For every piece of spam mail you get, email the provider which sent it, ten times. Now any providers that are left after an hour will realize they need to crack down. So who wants to set a target date? :)

Re:Very easy solution by odaiwai · 2003-01-23 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not just China: ISPs in South America don't care about spam either. Also, some major US ISPs like UUNET, Level3 and Worldcom don't, in my experience, give a fig about their users spamming, or undertaking any abuseive activities. I get probed by all three regularly and get no response when I send LARTS to abuse@ anyone of those three ISPs. Well, i get a response from Level3, but they just send my complaint to the spammer and I get more spam.

The major backbones in the USA condone spam. What makes you think a Chinese ISP will condemn it?

Shove all of Worldcom, UUNET and Level3 into SPEWS, that's what I say!

dave "rot in Spews"

Ironic by jyuter · 2003-01-23 02:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

That Monsterhut.com lists links to spam filters.

A Swing in the right direction by FortKnox · 2003-01-23 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Many states are implementing no-call(/spam) lists, spammers are getting nailed for not following the law 'to the T', and more spammers are just getting prosecuted for various charges. Looks like the law finally is on the side of the spamee's. Looks like we may be in for some good times in the near future...

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Re:A Swing in the right direction by mark_lybarger · 2003-01-23 03:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh my.

it's quite too bad that we can't have engineers design and develop a communication method that doesn't allow this type of "abuse". these people are merely taking advantage of a flawed system and we want prosecution?

our freaking law makers are busy trying to figure out how we'll implement the "no child left behind act" from mr. gwb to spend their time making and implementing spam laws.

here's a wacky idea. educate the population. educate them A LOT. let them design a system which is secure, easy to use and easy to maintain. let them learn from our mistakes with telephone, email , cable tv and all the other failed communication mechanisms.

radio and over the air tv are about the only decent delivery mechanisms i can see. their major flaw is that they are only one sided in that you send a message and hope someone tunes it in. they're also highly regulated in that not everyone can get their messages out via those channels.
Re:A Swing in the right direction by walt-sjc · 2003-01-23 03:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Oh my.

It's too bad we don't educate our kids to learn how to use the Shift key.

But back to the topic at hand, if nobody can build a general purpose secure OS, how the fuck do you expect anyone to create a messaging system which the main purpose of is to allow any-to-any communication that is invunerable to spam and still a viable system to be used by businesses and the masses in general? Do you REALLY think that spammers won't find a way around technical limitations?

Imagine a society with no laws. You can be killed by anyone, have your stuff stolen, your daughter raped and no laws to stop it. Only the strong survive. Warlords control everything. This is essentially the internet as it is today.

Back in the "good old days" before AOL invaded Usenet, laws were not really needed. The community for the most part policed itself. This is no longer possible.

We now need laws to enforce proper behavior. Will this stop all spam? No. Do laws against shoplifting stop all theft? No. Do they discurage most people from shoplifting every time they enter a store? Yes, they do. They provide a way for shop owners to protect themselves.

The bottom line is that we KNOW anti-spam laws will not stop all spam. It will however reduce it significantly.
Re:A Swing in the right direction by mark_lybarger · 2003-01-23 04:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

first off, i don't like getting uninvited emails, phone calls or USPS messages any more than the next guy (UPS packages are most welcome). I'm not a spammer nor a telemarketer nor a mass emailer. i'm a java developer.

first off, i can't quite see how the "antisocial" person had committed thievery? they haven't taken anything concrete. only given something that wasn't asked for. it's up to you to accept or reject the offer, correct? you pick up the phone or you don't. it could be a student loan consolidator who just wants to talk to you for a minute, or it could be mom calling to talk about nothing (either way it might be better not to answer :) ). in order to steal something to be a thief, you need to take something of value. the only thing taken is the recipeients time to decide weather or not to accept or delete the message. there's also your internet bill, but you elected to sign up for your email service from whatever provider plan you like. if you're provider is charging you per message and it's not working out for you, find a new provider.

secondly, yes, i do believe that the system should be designed as robust as possible and as flexable as possible. trust should also be inherant in any system. pagers for instance have a level of trust. the pager company doesn't generally publish your number so it's a pretty trusted environment for communication. you give people a pager number and they can page you. you know when you get a page that it's needed to be returned.

it's not the gov'ts job to play playground moderator telling people how to play nice together. their job is to protect the borders and uphold the constitution. your constitutional rights are not being infringed on by email spam or phone spam. your right to "privacy" is not infringed since you elected service from that particular company, and probably in the small small print was disclosed how the system works and weather they'll give your number/address to others, or weather it's just a guessing game. in a true monopolistic market there needs to be governement rules (they created the monoply after all) otherwise the rules will be created by the market and consumers. if someone doesn't give the consumers what they want, someone else will come along and do it.
Re:A Swing in the right direction by mattACK · 2003-01-23 07:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I won't let my five year old have his own mail box because I don't want hot and wet lolitas and horse fuck invitations hitting him. These messages reach children and that is CRIMINAL. The blanket pornography that is spam's staple must cease.

--

"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."

Catching them on fraud by PhysicsGenius · 2003-01-23 02:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's a very good plan. They claimed to be opt-in but weren't, so sue them. Nice. Kind of how they got Al Capone for tax avoision, not racketeering or murder. It's a lot easier to prove the former.

The best of it is that they can put these guys behind bars while skipping right by the free speech issue. While normally I hold the first amendment to the highest standards, I favor suspending it for spammers.

Doesn't help (Re:How long) by edgrale · 2003-01-23 02:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's what KaZaA was all about and yet the RIAA (or who ever) was able to sue them.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

"ignored" - hardly by AssFace · 2003-01-23 02:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

ignored at least 750,000 requests by consumers to be taken off their lists.

I'm sure they didn't ignore them - they use those responses to determine that they now have a confirmed live e-mail address which is worth more than a bunch of e-mail addresses that nobody checks.
so I'm sure they don't just ignore them - they likely instead do just the opposite and have much interest in those 750,000 responses and gave them a little extra attention... like logging them in their database as "live" or something like that.

All I have to say about this is 1) I wish I had thought of it all in 1995 - could have made a bundle and 2) SpamAssassin rules!

--

There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.

I feel good but I would like a definition by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-23 02:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

I feel good that I only sent 11 millions mails within the past 2 years and customers are able to unregister themself, but, I would like to have a clear legal definition of spamming.

Is there a clear legal definition somewhere of spamming?

And what about regulation from where it's sent?
US law do not apply if I'm from Canada...right?
So I cannot be brought into a US court if I'm spamming from outside US! ?

datacommarketing.com by Openadvocate · 2003-01-23 02:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe someone could do something about the infamous datacommarketing.com. It is so annoying to get your mail servers spammed by their name guessing server(65.242.117.50).
Now I can't see their homepage because I have blocked their entire subnet in my router :), but I seem to remember their homepage saying that they don't spam. Sorry, but I have got the logs to prove it, and so does many others.
How on earth can a company like that just continue act like they do?

--
my sig

Corporations want first amendment right too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-23 02:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Fraud is not protected speech.

Oh, but it will be soon

"...Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives...They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, where they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early January"

Neat, ain't it.

is it possible by ChuckMaster · 2003-01-23 02:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

but if all spammers move offshore, could we black list providers at routers where they come into the country? If a provider refuses to remove a spammer, can they be added to a black list, so that any packet with an ip from those routers get tossed? Or packets without received ips in their email headers? I know its kind of an extreme solution, but it would defintely attact the providers attention if their users can no longer send email to usa or canada

declare WAR on spam! by AwesomeJT · 2003-01-23 02:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

No more passive deletions: get active, sue them to the stone age, send them "snail mail" spam, post their address on /., do whatever to get even!

I hear a case where someone started sending spammers bills for the time used to delete messages and investigate who sent the message, etc. The funny thing is, a large number of spammers actually paid or were forwarded to collections. I'm hoping this was not another urban legend -- I want to start doing the same.

--
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.

Results by tiltowait · 2003-01-23 03:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

This apparently actually produces results:

Earlier this month, said Ralsky, somebody told the Chinese government that a Web company from which he leases e-mail servers in Beijing was sending messages critical of Chinese policy.

Police promptly raided the business and confiscated Ralsky's servers. Although they were returned a few days later, Ralsky now tries to cover his tracks better, so opponents won't know what companies and servers he's using.

Linford said he heard of the raid. "It wasn't us that caused it," he said. "But there are a lot of anti-spam activists, and apparently some of them on their own started organizing a campaign to get the Chinese government to think that Ralsky was supporting" the Falun Gong, an outlawed spiritual group the Chinese government considers subversive. "We didn't endorse that, but it shows you how deep the anti-Ralsky feelings are."

- http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend22_20021122.h tm

Re:DON'T REALLY DO THIS by zaren · 2003-01-23 03:20 · Score: 1, Interesting

Multiply the number of spams by the time it takes to deal with them, and hasn't the spammer, in effect, taken a life?

I don't care how many spams I get and how much time it takes me to report / delete them, there is NO way to compare the inconvenience of spam to putting a bullet in someone's brain. That is taking a life. I'll stop using email if it comes down to a choice like that.

We (tinw) know that AlRal had some of his spam boxes hosted in China, and someone sent a Falun Gong-type message to the ISP that was hosting them... all of the machines related to that message were confiscated by Chinese officials and carted off, simply due to the Falun Gong reference. No clue what happened to the admins, but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume some sort of reprisal was brought down upon them.

Fscking around with a government like the one in place in China, one that ignores internationally established human rights policies, and forbids freedom of expression and freedom of religion, all for the sake of a funny, is NOT a good idea.

--
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!

He should get 47 years in prison. by pclminion · 2003-01-23 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Assuming that only 1/5 (100,000,000) spams reached human recipients, and assuming each person wasted 15 seconds recognizing it as spam, cursing, and deleting it, we have a total waste of time:

15*100000000/3600/24/365 = 47 years.

Maybe he should have 47 years of his time wasted.

(No, I'm not actually serious. But that's a lot of wasted time.)

Re:DON'T REALLY DO THIS by wytcld · 2003-01-23 04:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

In China ... there may not be an opportunity to refute such charges before an impartial court

An understatement. There's no impartial court, so no opportunity. Still, a friend's band is called "The Nail Nippers," with some samples on an mp3 site. They keep getting e-mails from China and elsewhere in Asia offering to supply them with nail nippers. These letters are written in good enough English, apparently by someone using data mining software to find every e-mail address on every Website that mentioned "nail nippers" - since if a human had read my friend's site it's just obvious it's the band's name.

So, is every factory in China staffed by people who write sophisticated data mining software? Or is there some quiet central government program that is helping facilitate spam in order to build China's export businesses? There's a certain likelihood that really doing this (replying to the spam with dangerous keywords) would really be tripping up the Chinese government, not some innocent little factory spam manager.

Of course, if you don't share my view that the legitimate government of China sits in Taiwan you may still consider this a bad thing. Those of us who favor armed insurrection on behalf of Tibet, Fulun Gong and freedom generally might even welcome it if the illegitimate government got more involved in chasing its own tail, rather than focusing effectively on suppressing and killing Tibetans and those with unauthorized spiritual faiths.

Sure, the innocent could suffer the worst fates; but the innocent already do. It's the sort of tough ethical dilemma where a choice may spare two innocent lives, but take another.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton

Differences between speech (free and protected). by El+Camino+SS · 2003-01-23 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Honestly people, please look this stuff up. IN the US Constitution, there is a difference between free speech and protected speech.

Free speech is a more nebulous term, it allows for the rights to freely congregate and express opinions about anything. If you use that to hawk wares with people that is fraudulent, then you may be prosecuted for your behavior. If you are falsely yelling "fire" in a theatre, then you may be prosecuted for injuries in the stampede. However, protected speech is a little different.

Protected speech in the US is Political Speech. Meaning that you cannot be restricted from standing in a public place and protest an event within reason. All political opinons are considered protected, and part of the democratic process. But even this has limits. You cannot disrupt or cause a public nuisance with this, like say blast a recording of the Communist Mannifesto every day with 1k watt speakers at the White House Lawn. That would disrupt the political process, and infringe on others rights to a working government.

In a word, we do have free speech, but these are solicitations... not political speech.

Also, corporations should not have free speech, because they are not citizens, do not vote, cannot be jailed for disruptive behavior, and do not pay any real taxes compared to their earnings.

Either way, free speech is not a license for fraud.

Hold on a minute.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-23 09:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

"We (tinw) know that AlRal had some of his spam boxes hosted in China, and someone sent a Falun Gong-type message to the ISP that was hosting them"

How do "we" know that? If you're gonna say that you saw it in the Detroit Free Press article, I believe that quote came from AR himself. I'd sooner believe the Moon was a cube than anything he said.

I have my own suspicion about the likelihood of my email being a deadly weapon to everyone in China. Not that the govt. isn't a bunch of SOBs, but I kinda doubt they're going to randomly frag people based on spam complaints, no matter what's in them. I'm not going to take the chance, though.

25 of 286 comments (clear)