Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Going After Hotmail Spammers

Mirkon writes "Quoth The Register: "Microsoft has targeted spammers with a lawsuit aimed at bulk mailers who harvest email addresses of Hotmail subscribers in order to bombard them with junk." Details are apparently sketchy at this point, but it's nice to see America's favorite monopoly putting its power to good use." The original news.com.com story is slightly more informative.

6 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. A good start by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now if I could only get hotmail to stop spamming me. About once a month I get spam from hotmail under the guise of 'hotmail member services'. These junk emails have ads for all sorts of things, have little to do with the opperation of my email, and are annoying.

    You can't block this address (staff@hotmail.com), and there is no 'opt out' other then to stop using the hotmail service.

    Mildly tolerable and acceptable if you are getting the email for free, but unacceptable if you sign up for a years service and pay them. Needless to say, I did not renew my pay subscription.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  2. The Essence of Value Added by Schlemphfer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think we'd all agree that an e-mail address isn't worth much, by itself. Spam prevention has become one of the best ways to add value to an email address, and make it more worth paying for. Filters work with varying success, and to the extent that filters are effective, an email account becomes more worth paying for. But filters will only take you so far; I use a Yahoo account for my personal email. Once upon a time, I never got spam there. But now I get hundreds of spams a month, and at least three or four a day slip past the filter.

    Hotmail's filters have always been poor compared to Yahoo's (insert obligatory anti-ms joke here.) But I have to say, that if Microsoft is going to start aggressively suing spammers who send email to Hotmail accounts, it's going to make their Hotmail service a whole lot more desirable. Microsoft has been desperately trying to get people to pay money for their Hotmail accounts (which, back in the DotCom boom, once promised "free email for life."), and I think suing spammers might be their best possible strategy. Not only does will it reduce Microsoft's storage and bandwidth costs, it will differentiate Hotmail from the slew of freemail providers, and make the service much more worth paying for.

    Until we get aggressive federal anti-spam legislation, this new strategy from Microsoft will be great for Hotmail users and good for the Internet in general. If the lawsuits actually frighten spammers away from Hotmail, I might indeed finally pay for my Hotmail account, which I now use only as one of those disposable junkmail accounts for registering on sites I don't trust.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
  3. Re:So what.... by zuggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why would MS sell your e-mail address so they can turn around and pay for the bandwith it takes to receive thousands of spam e-mails?

    Easy, to force people to return often to said free email account to delete spam on the very small capacity accounts, thus seeing more ad banners in the process...

    AND

    To frustrate serious users into shelling out money to purchase an account with a higher capacity

    You don't become a monopoly by thinking linearly!

  4. Re:Mail readers. by Bilbo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    > i hate spam to, but i don't think there is or should be anything illegal about it.

    Heh... You've obviously never been on the receiving end of this little trick. You'd quickly change your pretty little tune after receiving several thousand hate-mail messages, and had your ISP account cancelled because you were "generating illegal spam and violating the User Agreement," and then got blacklisted from other ISP's because you were a known spammer, and had people hacking into your computer to get back at you and... well, need I go on?

    > if i send the same messages via snail mail is it illegal abuse of your home address?

    Ummm.... that's called Mail Fraud, and carries heavy fines, and jail time if you do it enough.

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
  5. Hushmail's spam filter... by dark_panda · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This thing works pretty well...
    1. When someone (or something) sends you an email, it gets stuffed into a "pending" folder rather than your inbox.
    2. Whoever sent you the email gets an automated reply from hushmail that requires them to click on a picture of a keyhole that's placed randomly on the screen in a java app, or something to that effect.
    3. After clicking on the keyhole once, they'll automatically get past your spam filter from then on. You can also set up lists of addresses or domains that bypass the filter all together.
    This system basically assumes that there's a human on the other end of that email to click through the filter. I haven't seen a single spam in my inbox since I enabled it.

    It's not impossible to defeat, but for the moment, it works great.

    J
  6. Coincidence ??? by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just by pure coincidence I submitted a posting about 2 hours before this, asking if anyone had done a comparative study of e-mail providers and Spam.

    I created a Hotmail account specifically for product registrations. It's NEVER been used in newsgroups (or to send out an e-mail for that matter), yet within hours it stared receiveing junk mail.

    I've not had that problem with my main e-mail provider

    Does this mean that

    a) Hotmail is a prime target for people generating "random" names for spamming

    b) Hotmail / Microsoft have weak security

    c) MS are selling or leaking addresses so that they can publicly clean up later and gain credit

    d) I'm just unlucky

    Personally I favour Napoleon's dictum that we should not attribute to malic that which can adequately be explained by incompetence (in other words, favour the cock-up theory over the conspiracy)