Slashdot Mirror


AOL Cans 1 billion Spams In One Day

linuxwrangler writes "AOL announced today that its spam filters hit the 1 billion reject mark for a 24 hour period. This is an average of 28 rejects per day per member. In addition, AOL spam engineers say they receive 5.5 million spam submissions each day from AOL users. Other reports here(1) and here(2)."

295 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 5, Interesting

    28 per subcriber per day caught.

    Only leaves 103 apeice...

    --
    TODO: Something witty here...
    1. Re:Wow! by 13Echo · · Score: 2, Funny

      103 which were okayed by AOL because they made the company more money.

    2. Re:Wow! by StarOwl · · Score: 5, Informative
      Man, what I'd give to only have 28 pieces of spam thrown my way each day. Here's how many pieces of putrid canned ham have been spewed my way in the past few days:


      23 February: 1095 spams, 7,821,318 bytes
      24 February: 1320 spams, 6,581,776 bytes
      25 February: 1700 spams, 6,875,706 bytes
      26 February: 1598 spams, 7,910,568 bytes
      27 February: 2659 spams, 13,183,247 bytes
      28 February: 1436 spams, 6,280,790 bytes
      1 March: 1492 spams, 6,917,835 bytes
      2 March: 1274 spams, 5,805,475 bytes
      3 March: 1488 spams, 6,196,761 bytes
      4 March: 1626 spams, 9,023,298 bytes

      Thank Ghu for tools like procmail, tmda, and spamoracle.

    3. Re:Wow! by PD · · Score: 1

      How old is your e-mail address? I've had my domain for a year, and I probably get 15-20 spams a day. My older e-mail addresses can get up to 50 spams a day, but nothing as bad as your spam problem.

    4. Re:Wow! by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Damn! I've had my current e-mail address for about 3 years now and I get 1 or 2 spams a day, if that.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    5. Re:Wow! by The+Bungi · · Score: 1, Funny
      Two +5 first posts in a row???

      I demand an explanation!!!

    6. Re:Wow! by Jeffv323 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should try changing your E-mail Address...

      --
      I'm a minister!
    7. Re:Wow! by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you're running a tarpit. :) With spam volume like that, you could really slow down the spammers!

    8. Re:Wow! by Ninja+Master+Gara · · Score: 1
      Age is only one factor. Those of us who had email before the spam boom might have had mailto: links on our website, or safely joined any mailing list we wanted, or used that address on the web. As a result, while we have an address that everyone who know us is familiar with, it's also had time to be sold, and resold on endless CD lists, but it's recognizable enough that we don't want to drop it.

      Disposable accounts are all I use online (lists, sites, etc) now, but I still have to suffer tons of garbage at my 6 year old personal address. Hundreds per day, not thousands, but it's still annoying.

      Thank you Spam Assassin derivitive port for keeping my main address at least tolerably usable.

      --

      ---
      When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
    9. Re:Wow! by jo42 · · Score: 1

      What's your e-mail addresses? We could fix that for you...

  2. But... by Black+Jack+Hyde · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...only 15 originated outside of AOHell in the first place.

    1. Re:But... by standards · · Score: 1

      You should learn how to read and interpret email header information. ;-)

    2. Re:But... by jmccay · · Score: 1

      Actually, AOL doesn't spam. You can turn off the intorductory pop ups. I haven't gotten a spam from AOL ever.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  3. AOL spam engineers? by nizcolas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they responsible for creating the spam, or stopping it?

    --
    If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
    1. Re:AOL spam engineers? by Zeebs · · Score: 4, Funny

      The answer is of course, yes.

      --

      Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
    2. Re:AOL spam engineers? by ngyahloon · · Score: 5, Funny

      They should use this threat in the next Austin Powers movie. Dr Evil spamming everyone's email with 1 billion ads/spams unless he is paid "1 Million Dollars"

      --
      Carpe Diem: Seize The Day!
    3. Re:AOL spam engineers? by one9nine · · Score: 3, Funny
      Mustafa: But my plan was perfect.

      Dr. Evil: Then why do we have 1 billon cans of SPAM in the middle of my underground lair?

      Mustafa: We were unable to predict homonym complications due to the reanimation process.

      Dr. Evil: SILENCE! I will not tolerate your insolence!

      Dr. Evil pushes the button, Mustafa gets badly burned, you get the idea.

    4. Re:AOL spam engineers? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      *shakes head*

      I grew up in Spamtown, USA (Austin, MN). It was a good place to grow up. Then (30 yrs ago) anyway.

      Now it's called Spamtown, USA. There are actually signs when you enter town proclaiming that. They advertise it. Oh, you poor bastards.... obviously there aren't enough Internet aware people there anymore. So sad. I don't miss it. Not a bit.

      So far as I know, there is no real connection between the junk email moniker and actual employees. Then again.....it wouldn't surprise me, either.

      AFAIC, they deserve the title...and the fame....and "Whores'R'Us" would probably be a better name for what that town has become...seriously.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:AOL spam engineers? by OMEGA+Power · · Score: 1
      This is just the incoming spam they stopped. If you add the spam AOL sent the number becomes 253647 billion [/sarcasim]

      Seriously though, I would like to know how much of this spam came from people AOL sold their users email addresses to

  4. What I want to know is... by AEton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...how much of that was outgoing? i.e, how much did AOL users themselves generate? Probably more than they want to let on...

    --
    We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    1. Re:What I want to know is... by digital+bath · · Score: 1

      Electronic spam is not the only junk that AOL sends out, of course. I myself have over forty free AOL CDs tacked up on my wall to serve as a mirror.

      --
      find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    2. Re:What I want to know is... by frankthechicken · · Score: 2, Funny

      I myself have over forty free AOL CDs tacked up on my wall to serve as a mirror.

      No, no, no, I think you are being slightly confused, that is not the way, AOL CD's are not an effective way to create a mirror, if you want to find a proper way, look here , which should take you through the necessary steps to build the AOL server for your mirror.

      Now, if someone could get this Apache to stop serving pages and get me a goddamn drink, I would be happy.

    3. Re:What I want to know is... by sixdotoh · · Score: 1
      i started such attempt too. got lazy and it never went far.

      check this site out though: www.nomoreaolcds.com and consider putting those cd's to a larger cause!

      --

      This post was brought to you by the number 584811 and the characters / and .

    4. Re:What I want to know is... by cjsnell · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Probably very little. If you've ever used the AOL client interface, you'll understand what I'm talking about. It is, perhaps, the lamest mail client around.

    5. Re:What I want to know is... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is...

      [AOL]
      Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/AOL]

    6. Re:What I want to know is... by grinder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, according to my stats, just about nothing. Oh sure, I get a lot of spam, and a lot of it appears to come from AOL, but it doesn't.

      People invent bogus From lines, forge Return-Paths, add fake Received lines, set up PTR records in the DNS of their own netblock to resolve to AOL names.

      For instance, one of the latest so-called AOL spams in my spamdump looks like this:

      From: "Clement Crow" <o8utyszvc0n@aol.com>
      Subject: Buy Phentermine, Viagra & more with NO PRESCRIPTION! US doctors and pharmacies! Overnight Shipping!

      The only Received line I trust comes from my own MTA, and it says

      Received: from host73.200-82-37.telecom.net.ar (unknown [200.82.37.73]) by {myhost.mydomain} (Postfix) with SMTP id DCFF8ADC4 for {me@mydomain}; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:44:15

      So this is some clown sending me stuff from Argentina trying to pass themselves off as AOL. Not that I'm trying to defend them, but they're convientient shields (along with hotmail.com and yahoo.com) for spammers to hide behind.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I have check out Tarproxy to see about integrating it into my inflict-pain-on-spammers setup.

    7. Re:What I want to know is... by The+Troll+Catcher · · Score: 1

      I haven't used AOL email in a while (got off of AOL right before they went to unlimited access per month and everything went to hell), but I got a big laugh out of their ads which say that their email client 'now has mail sorting!'. Wow. That's so impressive - real mail clients have been able to do that since, what, 1980?

    8. Re:What I want to know is... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      But AOL mirrors are actually the best mirror going!

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  5. Failure rate? by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And how many got through?

    1. Re:Failure rate? by trmj · · Score: 1

      erm... 5.5 million per day as the article states?

      That'd be my guess.

      --
      Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    2. Re:Failure rate? by mosch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More importantly, how many valid emails were wrongly discarded as spam?

    3. Re:Failure rate? by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Members are clicking on the "Report Spam" button to send up to 5.5 million pieces of junk email per day to AOL's anti-spam engineers

      Your guess is that every single piece of spam that gets through is reported?

    4. Re:Failure rate? by digital+bath · · Score: 1

      "A very small fraction", according to the article. However, as it is impossible for the AOL people to go over all 1 billion emails, it would be very hard to say. I would tend to lean towards "enough legit emails discarded to get annoying"

      --
      find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    5. Re:Failure rate? by trmj · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Yep. From what I have noticed in real life, every person who still uses AOL is quite adept at complaining. Reporting these spams is the best way to complain to AOL about them.

      They are just doing what they do best.

      --
      Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    6. Re:Failure rate? by micheas · · Score: 1

      All those that are valid but have a reverse dns that looks like it might be assigned by dhcp.

    7. Re:Failure rate? by GospelHead821 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately, complaints about unwanted email are considered spam by the filters and never actually reach support@aol.com.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    8. Re:Failure rate? by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

      No, more importantly, how many valid emails were blocked?

      I had to to send a business email to someone with an AOL address. The bounce message indicated that it was rejected because it came from an open relay. (more interetingly, the bounce happened between two AOL servers, not even involving my IP address on RoadRunner)

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    9. Re:Failure rate? by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are saying AOL's spam filters have a 99.4% success rate (5.5m/1b)? Please. Why is this modded up?

    10. Re:Failure rate? by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      how many valid emails were wrongly discarded as spam?

      I can partly answer that, and say it's probably a huge number. Bigger than they want you to know. I help out with a local church's Web site. This is a church -- they're far too nice and technically inept to spam anyone. But their site is hosted on a machine that about 100 domains use. Other customers of the ISP HAVE sent spam. AOL blocks at IP address, so all 100 domains are blocked.

      So. To answer your question, a LOT of legitimate email is not getting through. I had to work with the church's ISP and AOL spam cops to get them to make an exception for the church's domain. They LEFT the other 98 domains that hadn't spammed on the block list, just because those domains hadn't complained yet. And of course, every now and then, they "forget" that they've made an exception for us, and I have to go over it all again.

      Really, AOL gets such big numbers because their system is not very efficient.

    11. Re:Failure rate? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why more ISPs don't offer twin email feeds for each customer - one could be totally unfiltered for the paranoid, and the other filtered using whatever the ISP decides upon.

      I know I'd use the filtered feed at my ISP if they offered one. I now get over 100 pieces of spam evey day - most for random character usernames and usernames I've not used in 6-7 years!

    12. Re:Failure rate? by rehabdoll · · Score: 1

      Fact: A couple of months ago. AOL blocked *telia.com. Thats Swedens biggest ISP/telecom (Swedens AT&T). This resulted in Telia killing of Port 25 for everyone. Then AOL removed the block.

      I *really* doubt that that many spams originated from telia. No explanation why AOL blocked *telia.com has been given.

    13. Re:Failure rate? by trmj · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll bite. Hell, you already consider me a foe, so what more harm can I do?

      To start off with, the information is grossly understated. If we were to find out what is going on with the filtering issue, we would need many more numbers than what they gave us (e.g. total number of mails processed, then broken down by sender, whether the recipient was in the to part of the header or the bcc part, etc).

      There are so many factors that go into this that it's not even funny. I run a medium sized hosting company and take care of spam complaints from the inside and outside, as well as deal with filtering. It's not the most interesting job in the world... and yes, I do have clients (business owners) who use AOL for their home dialup service. They tend to be the ones that complain most.

      So, to answer your question, yes, from the information we were given, it appears that their filtering is 99.4% successful. Is this at all accurate? Nope.

      It's not my fault the moderators don't agree with you. Most of the time, they don't agree with me either. Unfortunately, unless you can think of a better moderation system and get Taco to build it, it's gonna be this way.

      --
      Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    14. Re:Failure rate? by benb · · Score: 1

      Mine. I run my own mailserver on a dialup line, and I get blocked. I have good reasons to run my own mail server (privacy etc.), that's why MAPS DUL sucks.

    15. Re:Failure rate? by benb · · Score: 1

      That's extortion. There is no technical reason to block Telia's central mail server to block the customer's machines.

    16. Re:Failure rate? by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 1

      So, to answer your question, yes, from the information we were given, it appears that their filtering is 99.4% successful.

      Where exactly does it state that AOL users are reporting EVERY SINGLE spam that gets through to them? Answer: it doesn't. You just assumed it, and for some bizarre reason are sticking to it.

      And "enemy", while a harsh sounding word, for me is just a convenient way to show certain posters at -3, guaranteeing I won't see them unless they are modded up (or respond to my posts). I could just as easily have used the "friend" category, but that would probably just confuse people.

    17. Re:Failure rate? by skt · · Score: 1

      Two separate feeds doesn't work for email, most ISPs will opt for a user-configurable filter (like none, sensitive, very sensitive). It looks like spam filtering is finally catching on at ISPs, they have even figured out that customers will pay extra for this feature. Mail clients are starting to implement this for home users. Mozilla, for example, will includes spam killing support in 1.3. I'm sure most ISPs will offer this in a year or so at the server level, making spam illegal seems impossible with the international nature of the Internet.

    18. Re:Failure rate? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      AOL does weird stuff. We found out with a new customer that AOL hijacks port 25 outgoing. (The customer maintains dial-up accounts with AOL for internet access, and yes, we're trying to get them to change.) Now, this may be a method to block spamming (not sure how successful it is), but AOL was less than forthcoming about it. We solved it by changing to port 26, which worked fine, but we've still not received an explanation of which I am aware.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    19. Re:Failure rate? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      and if they do, does anyone seriously think they take the time to deal with them?

      I mean, really.....

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    20. Re:Failure rate? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I know mine were many times. Trying to contact an ebay seller today kept getting rejected due to my email address not being regestered to ebay.com.

      AOL probably thinks spam is all the improtant email going over their servers and the junk mail that they make money off of is the non-spam email.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    21. Re:Failure rate? by quintessent · · Score: 1

      While this sounds teacherous, it actually gives the ISP extra incentive to keep spammer customers off their servers. Otherwise, they may lose their other customers.

    22. Re:Failure rate? by jenssoderberg · · Score: 1

      Stupid people that i have to moderate.. ;-)

      --
      /. AC "Concrete lifejackets could get certified under ISO2002"
    23. Re:Failure rate? by marmoset · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I have run my own mail server for 3 years, which has never sent a single spam, and which has never been used as a relay for a single spam (I religiously use the available tools for diagnosing open relays against my own domain), and two weeks ago AOL started blocking my IP, simply because it's in a DHCP range (doubly silly, considering my "dynamic" IP has only changed once in the last 18 months.)

      I wouldn't care, except that several nontechnical family members are AOL subscribers, so I have to remember every time I need to contact these people that their mail is being hosted by a braindead provider with extremely lossy inbound mail servers, and I have to use another account (hosted on an outside provider) to contact them, with no assurance of success.

    24. Re:Failure rate? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Interesting... Block legitimate mail and claim a spam-blocking record.

      You know the headline we'll see when AOL's entire e-mail system goes down...

      "500 Billion Spam E-Mails Blocked"

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    25. Re:Failure rate? by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      I assign foes as people I don't agree with, yet are insightful and bring a new angle onto the subject that I didn't see before. Both are shown at +3.
      One of the useful things of this system is the "foes of friends" feature. When someone I think is intelligent considers someone else to be a waste of time, that's useful information to me. I may read what they say, and if I agree that they are a waste of time, I'll make them a foe too.

      If people use the system my way, we end up with a "web of trust" that can separate the wheat from the chaff around here. Your way doesn't do that. For instance, what do you do if you see a really ignorant hothead spout off about something? I can mark them as a foe and let others know that I think that guy is a dummy. You are forced to leave them at the default "grey" setting, thus imparting no information at all, and wasting your own time in the future reading more of that person's rants.

      Your usage of "foe" to mark insightful people with whom you tend to disagree defeats the system, and is likely to be misinterpreted. The system is a lot like spam filtering, and you're injecting false positives.

      (In case you're wondering, I show friends at +1 and foes at +0.)

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    26. Re:Failure rate? by scrytch · · Score: 1

      > Really, AOL gets such big numbers because their system is not very efficient.

      Oh, it's efficient all right, it's just not very convenient. Yes, there's overzealous blockers that drop entire netblocks, but you said it yourself, it's all originating from the same IP Address. What do you propose they do? Implement an entire account structure for SMTP auth for every potential email sender on the internet?

      Have you thought about calling your ISP and telling them just why your mails aren't getting through? And switching service if they don't get it or don't care?

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    27. Re:Failure rate? by darco · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, this is to keep spammers from signing up for that 30 day free trial, and spamming from it.

      Also, if someone could compromise (ie: spyware) a few hundred (or a few thousand) dial-up accounts, then they have a pretty effective mass-spamming machine. Blocking port 25 outbound keeps that from happening.

      Earthlink, and AT&T Broadband (dialup), and I assume others do the same thing.

      It pissed me off when I first ran into this issue, but after sitting down and thinking about it it makes sense. After all, anyone who needs to use a mail server in this way can probably find a way around it, as you (and I) have.

      Also, from what I understand, port 24 is reserved for "private mail server use". I use port 250 for mail stuff behind port-25-blocked accounts, but should we be using port 24 for this kind of stuff?

      --
      — darco
    28. Re:Failure rate? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You bring up some good points. I wasn't aware that Earthlink and others did that. I'd get a bit annoyed, as I use three different e-mail servers for outgoing (work, private domain, and a website I manage), but I guess their solution is better than letting the spammers in that easily.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  6. AOL members aren't sending 5.5 million spams a day by jrstewart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, maybe they are, but that's not what's reported in the article.

    AOL users are reporting 5.5 million spam messages a day to customer service.

  7. New notification by Defender2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can see it now:
    *bing*You got mail!

    "You have 10 new messages"
    "You have 293 rejected messages"

    --
    ...I'll procrastinate tomorrow...
    1. Re:New notification by Servo · · Score: 4, Funny

      More like...

      *bing*You got mail!

      "You have 10 new messages"
      "You have 293 rejected messages"

      MSG 1> Increase your breast size!
      MSG 2> Increase your penis size!
      MSG 3> Loose weight fast!
      MSG 4> Re: my naked webcam!
      MSG 5> Make money advertising on the Internet!
      MSG 6> Your unclaimed money!
      MSG 7> Horny babes with horses!
      MSG 8> Incest rape! W@W!
      MSG 9> Make millions in Real Estate!
      MSG 10> Do you hate spam? You need this! Only $29.95!

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:New notification by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      No, MSG 10 is as follows:

      Re: Your account status.

      When you open it, you see goatse.

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    3. Re:New notification by Servo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now wait, are we talking about AOL or Slashdot here?

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    4. Re:New notification by mlrtime · · Score: 1


      How did you get into my hotmail account?

    5. Re:New notification by Servo · · Score: 2, Funny

      The same way everybody else does... Hotmail sold it. :)

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    6. Re:New notification by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      Or as in Futurama....

      Computer: You've got mail!
      Leela: Yeah yeah...
      Computer: It's not spam!
      Leela: WHAT?

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    7. Re:New notification by kasperd · · Score: 1

      How did you get into my hotmail account?

      I run a SMTP honeypot on my computer. It accepts any incomming mail but doesn't deliver it anywhere. Some time ago a person misconfigured his computer so it would send lots of his own outgoing mail to me. To make this even more funny he got infected by a virus that produced lots of outgoing emails with random files attached. I got a few cached HTML documents from hotmail, including one email containing his username and password for a datingsite.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  8. wouldn't it be easier, quicker and smaller...? by irving47 · · Score: 5, Funny

    To measure the LEGIT email going through AOL?

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
    1. Re:wouldn't it be easier, quicker and smaller...? by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

      Seems to me they probably just take the total number of messages they receive and subtract the amount of legit mail sent to them to get the spam total.

      It wouldn't exactly be newsworthy to say "AOL MEMBERS GET TEN MILLION LEGITIMATE EMAILS IN ONE DAY" though.

    2. Re:wouldn't it be easier, quicker and smaller...? by sixdotoh · · Score: 5, Funny
      lol, that sounds like the making of a bbspot story.

      AOL user shocked! "I received a personal message that was not trying to sell me anything! I didn't know this kind of thing existed!"
      AOL engineers responded that this anomaly occasionally happens about every 0.264% of regular mail sent. . . .

      --

      This post was brought to you by the number 584811 and the characters / and .

  9. Spam Engineer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do you apply for a job like that? And why was it I immediately thought of that putrid spam in a can when I read that.. Ugg...

    1. Re:Spam Engineer? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      You must know this book front and back.

      --
      Huh?
  10. not to burst your anti-spam bubble, but . . . by kraksmoka · · Score: 5, Insightful
    unfortunately, i would guess that half of their spam is legitimate communications that get blocked. i have alot of email addys. but apparently, only my mac.com address gets through.

    every other letter i write to my mom gets rejected. if i am not allowed to spam my mom, who else should be????

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    1. Re:not to burst your anti-spam bubble, but . . . by agentZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have to know why you're asking your Mom if she'd like to add three or four inches to her penis length.

    2. Re:not to burst your anti-spam bubble, but . . . by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      I have to know why you're asking your Mom if she'd like to add three or four inches to her penis length.

      Penis size is genetic. He knows how badly his dad is lacking in that department. It's like community service for the family.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    3. Re:not to burst your anti-spam bubble, but . . . by standards · · Score: 1

      "Dear Mom,

      Want to grow your penis up to 5 times bigger? Here's a safe and proven method of doing so, drug free! And it only costs pennies a day!

      " ...

  11. This is the most important story of the year by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    And it is under the most correct section: Your Rights Online.

    Today 1 billion voices were silenced. This is not some make believe movie where Alderan gets blown up. It is about the actual usurpation of the Freedom of Speech.

    AOL has taken it upon themselves to decide for their users what is appropriate speech and what is not. That is sad. If you think Microsoft is taking away your freedoms because they own 90%+ in the OS market it is time to recheck your bad guys. AOL has just proven itself to be an enemy to Free Speech. That is a much more grave violation of your rights online than anything Microsoft has ever done.

    The laughable part of all this is that AOL is the biggest real-world spammer with their tons and tons of CDs that have to be dumped into landfills every year.

    Fuck you AOL for making yourself judge, jury, and executioner of the First Amendment.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      you sound like a spammer that just started losing userbase, and about to go under...

    2. Re:This is the most important story of the year by mstockman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would someone mod the parent up +1 Funny, please? Because the poster can't be serious. Let's look at a few of the more obvious problems with the post:

      • You capitalized "Freedom of Speech" being usurped, so I assume you mean the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, which you mention at the end. Sadly for your post, that Freedom and that amendment apply only to the Government. Private institutions can suppress (that is, fail to use their own money to allow) any speech they damn well please.
      • Nobody is taking away anyone's freedoms, because each and every AOL user whose spam was blocked paid AOL to do it. Those who don't want spam blocked are Free to change to another ISP. (Oh, quit it... AOL is too an ISP. Stay on topic, all right?)
      • Finally, tons and tons of CDs, unless they appear as ISO images in your mailbox, are Junk Mail, not spam.

      Hope this clears up exactly which "rights" have been infringed here -- the rights of spammers to dump 1 billion pieces of mail into AOL users' mailboxes. And I just can't get too hot under the collar about their loss.

    3. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Geaty · · Score: 1
      Ok first thing: are you pro-spam? Because if you are you would be the first one I have ever seen. And I would also have 1 billion emails to send your way.

      Explain to me how this is a violation of the freedom of speach. What I see being possibly denied here is the freedom of listening. You can send all the emails you want promising a debt-free penis enlarger, AOL won't stop that. All they're doing is refusing to use their system to get your message through. I don't see anything wrong with that.

      This isn't to say this is my opinion of the whole situation, but you gave one extreme, I've given the other, and somewhere between the truth probably lies.

      --
      All I ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
    4. Re:This is the most important story of the year by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      You are missing two issues:

      1)The spams are reported by the users of the system. If you don't like the aggregate use of spam filters that your ISP is using, then switch to an unfiltered ISP and filter your own (or not at all.

      2)The voices are not being silenced. People are choosing not to listen to it any more. They already heard the message of "free speech" as applied liberally by the spammer from russia. They act upon that message and choose not to hear it any more.

      If that isn't a exercise in freedom of speech, or rather a freedom from the spammers speech, then there is no way to classify freedom of speech and the USA should get rid of that reference in the Constitution.

      robi

    5. Re:This is the most important story of the year by arvindn · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Although parent post sounds trollish, it has a valid point. Filtering incoming mail by the ISP is a bad idea, atleast much worse than filtering outgoing ones.
      • It doesn't help the wasted bandwidth problem.
      • Since the users don't know what mail they were going to get, there is much less accountability. OTOH, if my ISP blocked the (legitimate) mail I sent, then I can complain to them.
      • The ISP can be forced to implement arbitrary filters like "pro-terrorist", "anti-US", etc by the government and no one would be the wiser.
      So this is a first step, but not the Right Thing. I hope ISPs start coming under more pressure to filter their outgoing mail.
    6. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you just disable the spam filter? I know Yahoo does this, and believe me, I ain't touching AOL, but I have to believe this feature is available.

    7. Re:This is the most important story of the year by robi2106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Tell me where it says in the USA Constitution that a corporation is required to pay to support your missguided interpretation of freedom of speech? The government isn't even required to do this.

      The only thing the government can't do is supress or prevent you from doing so.

      I should be allowed to stand on the steps of the White house and demand that I be given press conference time immediately following the President, just because I am a citizen. But I should be reqected my requests and even asked to shut up and read the Constitution that I tried erroneously to wave in my defense.

      And how many spams originate from citizens of USA any way, more from outside I would venture.

      robi

    8. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Except, spam filters are optional. So, go fuck your dog some more.

    9. Re:This is the most important story of the year by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Fuck you AOL for making yourself judge, jury, and executioner of the First Amendment.

      Ah, frea speach. What an overrated 'right' that is. Sorry, but your precious Amendment only prevents the government from shutting you up. There's no reason AOL can't censor you, and there's nothing to stop the Slashdot mods putting you to -1. That was settled long ago; Sanford Wallace, the Ralsky of his day, sued AOL and Compuserve for filtering his junk out, and he lost.

      It costs AOL $2 per month per user just to handle the spam traffic. AOL's huge userbase makes them a magnet for dictionary attacks. If you want an unfiltered mail feed, then by all means pay someone extra for spam storage, or run your own mail server.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:This is the most important story of the year by bkocik · · Score: 5, Interesting
      AOL has taken it upon themselves to decide for their users what is appropriate speech and what is not

      No, we have not. Spam is the #1 complaint we get from our users. They don't want the stuff, so we're fighting it. We block what they ask us to block.

      But, of course, we're AOL and this is Slashdot, so naturally everything we do is wrong.

    11. Re:This is the most important story of the year by radar2k2 · · Score: 1

      Get a grip. The 1st ammendment is about the freedom of expression, not the unalienable right to have an interested audience.

    12. Re:This is the most important story of the year by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      You're a horrible person, comparing AOL's filtering of spam to the Holocaust? Please explain to me the relationship. AOL is stopping people from abusing its servers. The Nazis killed Jews, homosexuals, Poles, Roma, among others. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Don't let me ever catch you using the three letters F, U, and D in the same sentence ever again.

    13. Re:This is the most important story of the year by mza · · Score: 1

      The first amendment applies only to *government* action. Check out the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendment, which imply the right of property. The network belongs to AOL, and they can restrict usage of it in any way they see fit. Free speech doesn't mean we have to provide you with a free podium.

    14. Re:This is the most important story of the year by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Brilliant troll. Kudos. I'm astounded that people are taking this seriously.

    15. Re:This is the most important story of the year by EngMedic · · Score: 1

      I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. This thread is over.

      Godwin's Law prov.
      [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    16. Re:This is the most important story of the year by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't call me a gypsy, I'll be anything you want me to be. For free. And not to worry, because you have already won! While you at it, why not add 15,301" (FIFTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED ONE IMPERIAL INCHES) to your penis?

    17. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      If you were arrested because of the shirt, then yes, your rights have been violated, but if you were arrested for some unrelated reason (like, say, robbing a bank), then no, your rights are not being violated.

    18. Re:This is the most important story of the year by jcr · · Score: 1

      Fuck you AOL for making yourself judge, jury, and executioner of the First Amendment.

      No, fuck YOU for trying once again to pretend that spamming is a free speech issue. It's a property rights issue, and no matter what you want to say, you have no right to use my property to do so.

      AOL is blocking spam because their customers don't want to receive it. If you have a problem with that, then use a different ISP, you self-righteous prick.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:This is the most important story of the year by oracleelf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not positive, but in my media law class I'm pretty sure we're taught that commercial speech is not afforded the same rights as, say, political speech. For example, Valentine v. Christenson (sp?) where the Supreme Court ruled an advertiser was not guarenteed the right to advertising on the street with flyers, even if he attached an editorial. I don't think spam is considered free speech in some or many cases.

    20. Re:This is the most important story of the year by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Although parent post sounds trollish, it has a valid point. Filtering incoming mail by the ISP is a bad idea, at least much worse than filtering outgoing ones.

      Disagree. FORCED filtering is [maybe] a bad idea. Optional filtering is a great idea (and I use it, myself).

      * It doesn't help the wasted bandwidth problem.

      Unless spammers figure out their email isn't getting through. Each message is not free - it's just really cheap. If a spammer realizes that 100% of their spam to *@aol.com won't get through, they won't bother.

      * Since the users don't know what mail they were going to get, there is much less accountability.

      True, unless the ISP does the smart thing and has the option of sending you a digest every [whenever] with a list of senders and subjects so you could check and see if Bob@somewhere.net sent you something.

      OTOH, if my ISP blocked the (legitimate) mail I sent, then I can complain to them.

      How will you know?

      * The ISP can be forced to implement arbitrary filters like "pro-terrorist", "anti-US", etc by the government and no one would be the wiser.

      Yeah, "forced" - how? And that would stay quiet, how?

    21. Re:This is the most important story of the year by jcr · · Score: 1

      Oh, blow it out your ass. The people the nazis killed weren't engaged in billions of counts of theft of services.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    22. Re:This is the most important story of the year by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Brilliant troll. Kudos. I'm astounded that people are taking this seriously.

      Ever read news.admin.net-abuse.email? Spammers talk like this _all the time_. This one maybe scores a 4 / 10; it was too coherent to achieve even an average score, and didn't even threaten to sue anybody. Didn't accuse anyone of being anti-commerce radicals against the little guy who wanted the net for themselves, either.

      Oh, watch that post's score sink! I suppose that violates his free speech too... ;-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    23. Re:This is the most important story of the year by blair1q · · Score: 1

      But, of course, we're AOL and this is Slashdot, so naturally everything we do is wrong.

      Of course, you're wrong.

    24. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 1
      Ah, frea speach.

      What in the world did you just say? Are you taking spelling lessons from the /. editors?

    25. Re:This is the most important story of the year by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Unless spammers figure out their email isn't getting through. Each message is not free - it's just really cheap. If a spammer realizes that 100% of their spam to *@aol.com won't get through, they won't bother.

      Sure they will. Some spammers get paid per message sent, not per message responded to. Plus, since it costs next to nothing to send, why not send it? Maybe the filters will miss it.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    26. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for doing your part. I worked with the abuse department at DirecTV Broadband before they went out of business, and I know when our abuse department fell behind on shutting down spammers, AOL notified us that they were about to block some of our customers' IP blocks. This happened multiple times, and we were able to use the threat to convince management to give us some additional manpower to handle the work.

      None of us will probably use AOL's service, but their abuse department certainly earned our respect.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    27. Re:This is the most important story of the year by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Do you really blackhole IPs, though? While it might be computationally more expensive to run baysian filters on each message, surely this would reduce the number of legitimate messages rejected. Also, why not use a whitelist system...if the email fails a filter test, and that distinct message is only being sent to ONE aol email, then the message is put in a holding queue and the originator is sent a message saying his email failed the spam filter, if he wants it to reach its destination please enter the numbers found in this box in a reply.

    28. Re:This is the most important story of the year by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      ---And I would also have 1 billion emails to send your way.

      Are you sure about that? A few mails of /proc/kcore or similar would be sufficient ;-)

    29. Re:This is the most important story of the year by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I should be allowed to stand on the steps of the White house and demand that I be given press conference time immediately following the President, just because I am a citizen.

      You can "demand" anything you want. You can stomp your foot and yell until you are blue in the face.
      Doesn't mean they have to give it to you.

    30. Re:This is the most important story of the year by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Funny

      But, of course, we're AOL and this is Slashdot, so naturally everything we do is wrong

      You got me on the internet.

      Granted, I've since graduated, but *blush* you were my first.

      --
      sig?
    31. Re:This is the most important story of the year by ToneHog · · Score: 1

      diff spam junk_mail

      --
      Center bodied, omni-minded.
    32. Re:This is the most important story of the year by tq_at_sju · · Score: 1

      if someone's email is not going through to an AOL person because of this, then why don't they just tell AOL and then they can remove the block on them. I think it's a great idea, obviously if you have the email john@screwaol.com and your email is blocked then someone at some point or another sent a ton of spam to aol members. If this is the case then your ISP should be banning that user and contacting AOL too, this will wake up the rest of the net who is ignoring who is on their servers, especially since a ton of people use AOL.

      --
      http://www.vanillaafro.com - take me seriously and I will shoot you
    33. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you really have no idea how much of a nightmare it would be to try to implement a whitelist of everyone who wants to send legitimate mail to an aol.com address? How big a holding queue do you suppose you'd need? Do you know how much legitimate mail is sent by automated systems? I can't imagine the tech support calls this would generate.

      Besides, if you tried to implement a whitelist for all of AOL, the spammers would get around it pretty quickly - just sign up for a free trial, send yourself spam, add the spam to the whitelist, and away you go. It would have to be per-user to be meaningful, and if they implemented it, it would just mean most AOL users would start using Hotmail or Yahoo instead, as I'm sure many do already.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    34. Re:This is the most important story of the year by billstewart · · Score: 1
      Actually it helps the ISP a lot, in several ways. I'm not sure that it's a good idea for the user, but it definitely cuts down on wasted bandwidth.
      • First of all, in most systems, including AOL, every message gets copied a couple of times before it's read, and killing it off early reduces several sets of them. For instance, with AOL, at minimum the message gets handled once coming from the inbound IP connection to the first mail server it hits, and once going from the mail server that the user's mailbox is on down to the user's PC. But there's often additional forwarding involved - the incoming connection and outgoing connection may be on different sides of a continent, and the mail server that initially handles incoming SMTP requests may not be the same server that handles whatever AOL users for POP/IMAP from the mailbox to the user, so there may be another hop or two in between.
      • Mail from known spammer sites doesn't have to be accepted at all - either you reject the DNS request, or reject the SMTP request, or start receiving the message and then quit (e.g. if you don't like the MAIL FROM in the envelope).
      • When a given site sends large numbers of relatively identical messages to real users, dictionary-search users, or spam-bait accounts, you can recognize the source after the first couple of detected bad messages and stop accepting further mail from them.
      As far as your second point goes, if mail is dropped silently, that's extremely rude and there's less accountability. On the other hand, if the sender gets some kind of comprehensible rejection notice, and the sender is a real human and not a spammer's bot, the sender can resort to subterfuge to deliver the mail (e.g. use a hotmail account instead of their blocked ISP, etc.)

      But yes, an ISP that does filtering can sometimes be forced to implement arbitrary filters, though so far I'd be surprised if there's legal theory that lets them be forced to do so silently (as opposed to forcing them to do wiretaps, which they can be forced to do silently.) I don't know if the US government is currently forcing anybody to block anything (though they could be asking "nicely" in some cases), but the Scientologists certainly are...

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    35. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to admit I think what AOL is doing is correct and slashdot does not speak with one voice. Hell from my point of view block all of them but don't just block it for AOL find a way to keep it from being sent to help the entire world. I have no problem with blocking spam even if you catch some real email in it unintentionally. I get thousands of messages a day and if I lose 5% of my real messages to wipe out 95% of the spam then that is something I am willing to do. Spam just costs way too much to deal with.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    36. Re:This is the most important story of the year by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      heh, I got on AOL back when they put out mac versions before PC versions. When you had to download a butt-load of stuff to be able to use mosaic. I do have some sort of nostalgia.

      I also used the same screen name, well for a while at least. I've had the screen name I use now since 1996 (which is redneck669), and before that I had redneck200 since about 1993(ish).

      --
      sig?
    37. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Exedore · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. This thread is over.

      Shame on you and your piddling Godwin's Law for trying to censor this poor citizen's speech. Why, you're no better than the Nazis who... Doh!

      --

      I take drugs seriously.

    38. Re:This is the most important story of the year by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well i would guess/feeling/say/heard_from_a_bum that quite a bit of spam ORIGINATE from usa(as in, they try to sell something to person living in usa), the way they arrive is through some (badly configured, open, yadda yadda) servers outside usa.
      (why? becaust theres just so many usa aol users to spam to)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    39. Re:This is the most important story of the year by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Sure they will. Some spammers get paid per message sent, not per message responded to. Plus, since it costs next to nothing to send, why not send it? Maybe the filters will miss it.

      Yeah, right. I should become a spammer - I could easily send millions of messages - to nobody[1-9999999]@dev.null. Think anyone will buy my service?
      I believe that spammers get paid for messages austensibly delivered. If it becomes well known that AOL has a good filter, spammers will not bother (unless they have a really good payload). Or they will stop getting paid. This is simple econ, stop trying to make it into some kind of magic.

    40. Re:This is the most important story of the year by jcr · · Score: 1

      Oh, look. Another little pig-ignorant NAZI coward.

      If you're going to be a racist shithead, at least come out in the open in your little brown shirt, you craven little shit.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    41. Re:This is the most important story of the year by warpath · · Score: 1
      Finally, tons and tons of CDs, unless they appear as ISO images in your mailbox, are Junk Mail, not spam.
      GAH! Don't say something like that out in public where AOL might hear you. By the time I get home from work, my email in-box is going to be at least 640mb larger now.
    42. Re:This is the most important story of the year by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      My god, this isn't slashdot? So... where have I been posting all this time? :-o

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    43. Re:This is the most important story of the year by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      But as it is now apparently large amounts of legitimate email are being dumped.

    44. Re:This is the most important story of the year by nadadogg · · Score: 1

      This is a pretty good thing that AOL is doing, them being AOL and all. I read reports all the time about small to mid-size ISPs having problems turning a decent profit due to having to deal with spam.
      But, of course, i have a 3-pronged defense. It's sorta like turtling in an RTS, except that I won't ever be able to break out.
      I have my cox cable email address, which i do not use. Then, i have my email address with my domain name, which i only use for emailing friends, family, and for pay services(the ones i trust not to give out my email addy), and then 2 different @yahoo addresses, for signing up for anything else online.
      When i was on AOL(late 97/early98), because I was in HS, with parents who weren't too computer savvy, I learned quickly to make an alt AOL account for signing up to things, and tried to use my main SN as little as possible.

      --
      i use linux and windows oh god how can i have an opinion
  12. Serious stuff, this... by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This may not be the crowd that wants to hear this, but some radical changes need to be made in the email protocol to minimize the amount of spam that users deal with these days. Bottom line is that the goal should be for email communications to be as trustworthy as phone calls - sure, there are some telemarketers and crank callers out there, but if the noise level from your phone was as high as in your email, there would be marches on Washington to demand a solution.

    I would think the most likely candidate would be to build-in verification of the sender, and bring about the end of anonymous email. That's sure to raise the hackles of many here, but so far, nothing's working.

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:Serious stuff, this... by Azureflare · · Score: 1

      Erm..That's the whole spirit of email thoguh isn't it? It's quick, easy...No hassle. Sure, if you sign up with providers who are targeted by spammers, you're going to get spam (I.e. people should NOT use AOL if they don't want spam). I use yahoo, and I get maybe one unwanted piece of spam a week (usually that damn nigeria one). All this trusted computing seems to be losing more than you're gaining. Email was never designed to be like telephones; the design and usage is completely different. Now, if someone could develop a painless protocol to verify senders, then I would be all for it. Perhaps we could have a server-side "trusted email address" list, so that trusted emails get first priority, but other email addresses don't get processed unless the email server is idle, or maybe the untrusted email addresses would get a bandwidth limit placed upon them, for the whole server. This of course would include a server-side email block list (which I guess could get extremely large with all those faked email addresses...*Sigh* I don't know much about that stuff)

    2. Re:Serious stuff, this... by tilrman · · Score: 1
      ... if the noise level from your phone was as high as in your email ...

      Who says it's not?

      Granted, I don't get very many phone calls . . .

    3. Re:Serious stuff, this... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The only thing that keeps your phone from being spammed like your email is that the phone is 1-to-1 communication.

      There are machines that can do the telemarketing work of dozens of workers over dozens of phone lines, but there aren't machines that can do the work of millions within a few hours over a single phone line.

      A single, cheap PC with an ethernet card, a $49.95 broadband internet connection, and a $19 piece of shareware (probably pirated) can do it easily.

      The only solution is jail time and public humiliation.

    4. Re:Serious stuff, this... by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 'trustworthiness' of phone calls has nothing to do with verification or anonimity. It is pretty easy to make what is essentially an anonymous phone call. Telemarketing and spamming have everything to do with cost effectiveness. It makes people money to spam. If it didn't, they probably wouldn't be doing it for all that long.

      Your phone isn't barraged with spam calls because it costs money to have someone sit and talk to you and try to get you to buy stuff. Just enough money such that you only occasionally get a call from a telemarketer. Apparently, the response rate for most spam is high enough that the costs associated with getting a reasonable level of responses/sent messages are less than the profits from doing so. Thus most people get piles of spam.

      Much like telemarketing, the way to stop spam is at the termination point, the user. If spammers don't make any money, they won't spam anymore.

      The solution isn't to take capabilities away from normal users, the solution is to make it so hard to be a spammer(that makes money doing it), that no one is a spammer anymore...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Serious stuff, this... by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1
      This may not be the crowd that wants to hear this, but some radical changes need to be made in the email protocol

      It's nothing to do with wanting to hear it, more to do with the reality that this isn't a practical solution. There already are protocols that add "trust" to email (OpenPGP, SMIME etc), but hardly anyone uses them. Do you propose forcing the entire world to suddenly switch over to a new email protocol (if by some miracle we can all agree on one), or would there be some backward compatibility? If the latter, then you don't solve the spam problem.

      Changing entrenched protocols is sticky business - how long has IPV6 been in the works? How long still til the entire net has switched over?

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    6. Re:Serious stuff, this... by mabu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      99.9% of spammers are hijacking mail relays. Therefore they are committing crimes and exploiting innocent third-party resources in their promotional efforts. At least direct mail and telemarketers pay for the "bandwidth" they consume. Spammers steal two to three times the resources that they use.

      Another fallacy is that spammers really make money - they aren't really engaging in a profitable venture, except their ability to steal other peoples' resources allow them to engage in ridiculously low-return, large-scale solicitations.

      "Stopping spam at the termination point" is ultimately ineffective. It becomes a never-ending spy-vs-spy game that ultimately catches legitimate mail and continues to consume system resources and bandwidth while not addressing the true problem.

      If spammers were unable to exploit third-party relays, things would change. Then they'd have to set up their own relays, pay for their own bandwidth, and execute more responsible marketing campaigns in order to avoid being globally blacklisted. The solution is amazingly simple and it has absolutely nothing to do with censorship or freedom of expression.

    7. Re:Serious stuff, this... by Maeryk · · Score: 1

      All this trusted computing seems to be losing more than you're gaining. Email was never designed to be like telephones; the design and usage is completely different.

      You know that. I know that. Most of us _here_ know that. But the company I contract for does not know that. To them, Email is the great solver, the thing that saves them tons and tons of money on printers and papers and memos. They treat it as if it were gold, to be savored, and not squandered, and they monitor the quantity of your inbox to make sure you do not use too much. And God forbid you get mail from outside *gasp*.

      The problem is a lot of joe-sixpack views Emails as the new phone. They have no idea you can forge headers, fake senders, tap an open relay acct or forge your return address.

      Sucks, but its the way of the world. And it is so ingrained now, it is not going anywhere fast.

      M

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    8. Re:Serious stuff, this... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      I would think the most likely candidate would be to build-in verification of the sender, and bring about the end of anonymous email.

      Or perhaps allow the user to choose whether to accept anonymous email or not; that way everybody is happy.

    9. Re:Serious stuff, this... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      It's not just an "I know and you know, but they don't" issue. Flat out, I don't want my kids getting bombarded with the type of spam I see on a regular basis. Let's face it - email is the new phone...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    10. Re:Serious stuff, this... by Wntrmute · · Score: 1
      if the noise level from your phone was as high as in your email, there would be marches on Washington to demand a solution.

      Actually, the noise level from my phone is *higher* than with my email.

    11. Re:Serious stuff, this... by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      This may not be the crowd that wants to hear this, but some radical changes need to be made in the email protocol to minimize the amount of spam that users deal with these days. Bottom line is that the goal should be for email communications to be as trustworthy as phone calls - sure, there are some telemarketers and crank callers out there, but if the noise level from your phone was as high as in your email, there would be marches on Washington to demand a solution.

      I would think the most likely candidate would be to build-in verification of the sender, and bring about the end of anonymous email. That's sure to raise the hackles of many here, but so far, nothing's working.


      Before changing a protocol that's worked for over 30 years,
      I'd like at least some evidence that what you propose would actually address the problem.

      It's easy to claim anonymous email is responsible for spam,
      but I get plenty of spam from companies that don't attempt to hide.
      (Network solutions for example.)

      And I don't see any reason the protocols need to change to implement what you're talking about -
      You could reject any email that isn't PGP signed right now if you want to.
      Make it easy for people to sign their email and it might even be reasonable to reject anything unsigned.

      -- this is not a .sig
  13. But how do I... by ufoman · · Score: 3, Funny

    But how do I block the 1 billion AOL CD's I get each year?

    --
    The following statement is false.
    The previous statement is true.
    Welcome to my world.
  14. "Allow all mail" doesn't work? by lwbecker2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the AOL "Mail Center" there is an option to "Allow ALL mail". I take it this doesn't work, or that AOL should change it to "Allow all mail that we decide to let through..." ?

    1. Re:"Allow all mail" doesn't work? by Globe199 · · Score: 1

      You people complain about spam, then you complain when someone tries to do something about it.

      Please, make up your mind.

      Globe199

    2. Re:"Allow all mail" doesn't work? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Maybe it works but nobody turns it on.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  15. What would AOL uses be trying to say anyway? by h-90 · · Score: 1

    I dont think we should worry about AOL users not being able to send e-mails. Infact I think AOL are doing us a favour.

  16. But wait... by taernim · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... I really did want to know how to please my partner with a bigger... Damn you for foiling my plans, Steve Case! \

    Oh wait... you're not even there to blame anymore! Blast!

    --
    "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
  17. Save those bits! by smartin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If this is true, can you imagine how much bandwidth and disk space is wasted by spam. I'd be willing to bet that the money lost to spam exceeds the money lost to pirate software and mp3's combined.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:Save those bits! by miner1 · · Score: 1

      Not only bandwidth and disk space, but also time. If it takes 3 seconds for someone to recognize and delete each piece of spam, that 3 billion spams is equivalent to 95 people-years. You could probably double that to account for the personal overheads of sleeping, eating, etc., so it is equivalent to at least two wasted lives to delete all of those spams. And remember, that was only in one day! Evil.

    2. Re:Save those bits! by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know what the X means, but the P stands for "Piece Of Crap"

      I assume you're talking about "XP".

      XP stands for Jesus Christ. When the Emperor Constantine fought for control of the western roman empire at the Milvian bridge in 312, he supposedly saw the sign "Chi-Rho" (Greek Letters X and P) in the sky, along with hearing a voice which said "in this sign, you will conqueror". Chi-Rho, the way it is usually depicted in ancient artwork, is an X super-imposed on a P. Chi and Rho are the first two letters of the Greek name for Christ, pronounced "Kreestos".
      Hence, where we get "X-mas". I once heard a baptist preacher say that x-mas was bad because they were crossing out christ, x-ing him out. This is stupid - since the 500's X has been a sign for Christ.

      Hence, WindowsXP is really Windows, version christ.

      --
      sig?
    3. Re:Save those bits! by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "jesus christ, he's right?".

      Hehe. Dude, I'm in college, working on my history degree. I'm taking an in depth study of the fate of the roman empire, called "later roman empire", we're going from rome to byzantium, from constantine the great (312) to constantine the 14th (1453).

      I know things.

      --
      sig?
    4. Re:Save those bits! by dreadknought · · Score: 1

      umm, no, x-mas didn't come from Chi-Rho, it came from the fact that that Christmas starts with a "criss" sound, which is the beginning of "criss-cross", and the best representation of a "criss-cross" in the English language is an x, as one can see from the fact that American railroad intersection markers state "Railroad X-ing"

      --
      What you reap is what you sow
  18. How do they know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, I get 20+ penis enlargement spam per day.
    But what puzzles me is how they know I have a
    small penis?

    1. Re:How do they know? by DChristensen · · Score: 1

      (-1, Too Informative)

      --

      --
      Mac OS X--Unix without the assholes^Whassles.

    2. Re:How do they know? by dlb · · Score: 1

      Try covering up your webcam on those Friday and Saturday nights.

  19. Yeah, including legit emails by barzok · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm on a mailing list and our AOL-based members frequently post "did the list die? I haven't gotten any email in the last couple days". AOL doesn't even reject the messages, they just get blackholed. Someone in the bowels of AOL's mailservers is a cache of tens of thousands of messages about pickup trucks.

    Our listmaster has been around and around in circles with AOL on it several times. It's almost not worth fighting anymore. Use AOL, accept the fact that email you want will not always get to you.

    1. Re:Yeah, including legit emails by dylan.ucd · · Score: 1

      indeed they do!
      i work for an certain organization, and am sending out emails to about 450 people at a time... the only people who fail to get these *legit* messages are people who use aol... go figure.

  20. With that much SPAM... by nekura · · Score: 1

    ... AOL could do something right for once and put an end to world hunger. It's funny because it's stupid.

    --

    "Programming is like sex - one mistake and you'll have to support it for the rest of your life."
  21. S.O.L? by coday · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean I'm gonna get screwed on my mortgage and have to settle for an average sized penis?

  22. What if.... by Mossfoot · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... we were allowed to physically punch a spammer for each piece of spam we get (remember that line up of people in the movie Airplane waiting to smack some sense into the panicky woman? ;) )

    Well, a guy can dream, can't he?

    --
    Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
    http://www.fuzzyknights.com
    1. Re:What if.... by tilrman · · Score: 1

      ... we were allowed to physically punch a spammer for each piece of spam we get ...

      I'd settle for just a phone call around 3:00 a.m. his time. (It'd put my phone to some useful purpose anyway.)

    2. Re:What if.... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      That happened in Eastern Europe didn't it ~1990? Was it the Romanian president or someone else who was in a van getting killed punch by punch?

  23. Good by aiyo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now my penis enlagrement products won't be drowned out by useless spam.

  24. But - by the+kfc+avenger · · Score: 1

    The poster got the figures wrong. Since AOL's user base has been declining, that leaves them with 10 users, meaning 100,000,000 spam emails a day. That seems about right...

  25. Re:God Damn It by mza · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bah...any rights you have on the Internet were endowed by Al Gore.

  26. Intelligent filters by digital+bath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be interesting to see the code behind AOL's spam filters. What do they consider spam? Does the email have to contain a certain percentage of capitalized letters, come from a certain user/address, have lots of embedded images etc?

    If the filter is anything like the filters in use in public schools and library networks, then it would be a fair guess that quite a few legit emails were blocked by the filters. It seems like writting an intelligent filter is pretty hard.

    --
    find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    1. Re:Intelligent filters by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Spamassassin stops about 99% of my spam. I've yet to see a false positive.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  27. There Are Always Alternatives by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    Those users of AOL can always sign up for a web mail account from one of the thousands available. Lycosmail.com does a great job of filtering (or else I have managed to not give away my address to a spammer) because in the last week I have gotten 0 spams.

    There are many others. Donate $10 to some orginization / charity that has a free web mail account with membership. Many don't even require you to donate to get the account!

    robi

  28. Holy. by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Fucking. Shit.

    I just totaled up the logs for the spam graph I keep for our mail server. In maybe a year and a half, we've caught approx. 1.6 million spams. I thought we were doing well.

    But Jesus Christ! Who here wants to start a pool? We'll bet on how long it'll take before AOL has stopped a googol of spam, total. I bet two and a half years; three tops.

    1. Re:Holy. by Badge+17 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We'll bet on how long it'll take before AOL has stopped a googol of spam, total. I bet two and a half years; three tops.
      Um... no.

      I'll easily take you up on that bet, as a googol is more than the number of elementary particles in the universe

      In fact, even if AOL stops 1 billion spams/day, it will take 10^91 days to accumulate 1 googol... which is "somewhat" large. (I know, spam will probably increase exponentially, but still...)

      Source:http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0 ,,sid9_gci213798,00.html
  29. So Thats Why... by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

    So thats why I haven't received any email today!

    --
    I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
  30. Don't exagurate. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't exaggerate.

    When you compare spam-blocking with Nazi atrocities, you're belittling the horror that Nazi victims experienced.

    Many of those Communists, Jews, trade unionists, Catholics were often killed in all manner of horrific ways.

    By contrast, AOL isn't killing anybody. If AOL blocks spam, somebody looses some money, and an AOL user gains some time, money & sanity.

    There can be no fair comparison of these two activities.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Don't exagurate. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      If AOL blocks spam, the spammer looses money.

      Do I care if the spammer looses money? No, because if the spammer gets through, AOL and the recipient loose money (time, computer resources).

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    2. Re:Don't exagurate. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Loose money. Spending it all around, wildly, without control.

      Like loose slots in Vegas.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    3. Re:Don't exagurate. by quintessent · · Score: 1

      somebody looses some money,

      Sadly, they're probably still making money. We have a moral obligation to fight this infringement on privacy. Spammers are the lowest form of life.

    4. Re:Don't exagurate. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you didn't swing the CLUE bat hard enough.

      I geet it now. Hoorible at speling, I am.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  31. Would it have been better to paraphrase? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

    They came for the spammers, but I wasn't a spammer so I didn't speak up.

    Then they came for the t-shirt wearers, but I didn't wear those t-shirts so I didn't speak up.

    3. ???
    4. Loss of rights!!!

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Would it have been better to paraphrase? by mstockman · · Score: 1

      Paraphrase all you want. When they come for my right to make other people pay their time and money to read my message, they can take that "right" from me, you, Viagra salesmen, and anyone else as far as I'm concerned.

      A spammer's right (and anyone else's right) to speak ends when he tries to make me foot the bill. And I defy you to show me where *that* right is guaranteed.

    2. Re:Would it have been better to paraphrase? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      They came for the spammers, but I wasn't a spammer so I didn't speak up.

      They came for the spammers, and I came along and got a brown shirt and knuckleduster of my very own, plus a great big baseball bat marked CLUE and a plank with a nail in it marked LART. And I did my bit - did you?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Would it have been better to paraphrase? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Spammers violate my right to privacy by making it next to impossible to block their spam.

      I agree with you on one point, I would prefer AOL do something other then blocking en-masse, such as empowering their users with decent filters on the client end (which can be disabled, or perhaps disabled by default).

      But it's AOL's private service, and they have a right to determine what happens on their servers. Don't like it? Don't use their service. And don't shop in shopping malls where people can't wear certain T-shirts.

      But if theirs one thing that pisses me off, it's when someone equates a minor offense with Nazi's slaughtering innocents.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    4. Re:Would it have been better to paraphrase? by ThatMadeNoSense · · Score: 1

      I would prefer AOL do something other then blocking en-masse, such as...

      That made no sense.

      But if theirs one thing that pisses me off...

      That made no sense.

  32. Can someone explain to me... by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    I assume a portion of this spam was for people who are signed up for AOL. If this is correct, why don't ISPs (especially big ones) put hefty fines on users that they catch abusing their TOS?

    Way to go AOL.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Can someone explain to me... by rwise2112 · · Score: 3, Informative
      The way it usually works is:
      1. End user reports SPAM to his ISP.
      2. EU's ISP contacts ISP of spammer and says joe@isp.com is a spammer. Usually through abuse@isp.com.
      3. If spammer's ISP does nothing and the SPAM continues, EU's ISP blocks entire spammer's ISP.
      4. Spammer's ISP gets reports from clients they cannot send mail to EU's ISP.
      5. Spammer's ISP finally kicks spammer off due to pressure from its users not being able to email EU's ISP.
      Of course, this is the theory.
      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  33. bandwidth usage by kidlinux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't get a whole lot of spam daily, nothing to get terribly upset about. Bandwidth usage for the amount of spam I get on my private server would be relatively trivial.

    But what kind of bandwidth would 1 billion spam messages take up? And system resources to process all that excess mail? I bet AOL spends a small fortune on spam - they gotta pay those "SPAM" engineers too.

    I hear people complain about spam, but I generally think to myself "yeah yeah." But 1 billion freakin messages is nuts.

    --
    -kidlinux.
    1. Re:bandwidth usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I run a small web server and answer lots of questions on Usenet Linux groups. I run a small business. I own several domain names. I've had the same email address for about 4 years now. As a consequence, I get somewhere on the order of 20 messages a day that get past my SpamAssassin filters to my inbox. On a good day I get about 50 filtered by SpamAssassin. On a bad day there may be 100-150 spams. My procmail filters show over a thousand spams since this month started.

      20 messages not so bad? Well, the subjects are deceptive -- "Re: Contract Extension", "Proposal for Work", etc.. If they get past the filters they're likely to be valid so I end up checking them. Each costs me 5 seconds or so. OK, 5 minutes a day wasted may not be a huge amount. Multiply that by a year and I've lost a day to reading spam.

      Let's talk about my Netscape account. I used to use it for personal email. Each week it receives close to a thousand spams. It's completely useless now. The problem is that some old friends still have that email address so occasionally they send me something. If I catch it I'll tell them about another personal address but why should I have to?

      Bandwidth, as you've noted, is negligible for me. But the cost in time (both for reading and for implementing a spam filtering policy) is not.

    2. Re:bandwidth usage by mlk · · Score: 1

      Set up a vaction message on your netscape account on the lines of
      This Email Accound Is No Longer Checked, please either phone me on *free-to-you-fucking-expenive-to-them-phone-to-ema il-service* [optional or email on blah *at* boogle *dot* com]

      Saved me once or twice.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  34. I think the correct word in this case by djupedal · · Score: 1

    ...is onslaught

  35. Spam is rain on the roof......... by siasl · · Score: 1

    Let's admit it. Spam is becoming like rain on the roof. Everyone I know has just whitelisted for email. Yes, you have freedom of speech. But I am free to ignore you....

  36. Ambivalence by iiioxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm kind of torn on this issue. On the one hand, I hate spam and those who allow it to proliferate. On the other hand, I abhor censorship in any form. I wouldn't have an issue with this at all if AOL simply provided its users with the *tools* to eliminate their own spam if they choose to do so. My problem with this is that AOL itself is deciding to filter its members' email, and making the determination itself as to what is and is not "spam". That's a reckless step down a slippery slope, in my opinion.

    1. Re:Ambivalence by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I abhor censorship in any form.

      So do I. However, what AOL did in blocking the spam, IE, controlling the use of their own property isn't censorship.

      It would be censorship if AOL tried to preven the spammers from using any other company's facilities to steal their advertising placements.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Ambivalence by iiioxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, what AOL did in blocking the spam, IE, controlling the use of their own property isn't censorship.

      It's censorship from the standpoint that they are making a determination for their users as to which content is acceptable and which is not. "Controlling the use of their own property" would be a valid argument if they simply tightened their acceptible use policy in regards to their own users, and restricted access to their own mailservers by preventing open relay, checking for mangled headers, referencing blackhole lists, etc.

      The point at which I think it goes too far is when AOL starts analyzing messages and deciding for their users whether or not a particular message is in fact, spam. I think what would be better is to give the users tools that would allow them to filter their own mail (ie, reject messages with specific keywords or combinations of keywords, like penis+enhancement or Nigerian+ambassador).

      I would even be satisfied if AOL simply ranked email with a spam meter, and then flagged the message as "Possible Spam" or something. As long as the message itself is actually delivered to its intended recipient. The user can then decide for themselves if they choose to trust AOL's ranking system and simply auto-delete anything flagged, or if they want to inspect it themselves.

    3. Re:Ambivalence by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > The user can then decide for themselves if they
      > choose to trust AOL's ranking system and simply
      > auto-delete anything flagged, or if they want to
      > inspect it themselves.

      The user can decide for himself whether or not to use AOL at all. By choosing to use AOL he chooses to accept AOL's filters. There's no censorship here.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Ambivalence by iiioxx · · Score: 1

      AOL is allowing customers to elect not to receive the spam.

      I see nothing in any of the linked articles to suggest that AOL is giving their users the option *not* to have their spam blocked. Users aren't "electing" not to receive spam, AOL is deciding for their users what is and is not spam, and then preventing that mail from hitting their inbox. This is my only contention to their anti-spam measures.

    5. Re:Ambivalence by iiioxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The user can decide for himself whether or not to use AOL at all.

      Agreed.

      By choosing to use AOL he chooses to accept AOL's filters.

      Agreed.

      There's no censorship here.

      I disagree. AOL *is* censoring the information that reaches their members' inboxes by filtering that material based on AOL's criteria, and not necessarily the criteria of their individual members. As I said before, I would have no problem with AOL taking measures against spam if those measures were largely passive in nature (ie, flagging incoming messages that meet certain criteria as "Possible Spam" and giving each individual member choices as to how they want to handle those messages). My problem with AOL's approach is that they are preventing those messages that AOL considers spam from ever reaching their customers' inboxes.

      Granted, one man's "censorship" is another man's "filtering service." I just think that AOL would be better served by giving their users the power to filter their own mail, rather than taking a "my way or the highway" approach to it. At the very least, the users should be given the option to choose whether they trust AOL's spam filter and want to just let their mail be deleted, or whether they want it routed to a designated "spam" folder of their inbox where they can verify it themselves.

  37. spam filters by upt1me · · Score: 1

    Are the members able to elect not to have there mail filtered? I myself would not want my mail filtered. I feel spam filters in place by ISP can cause lost mail and to me is a sense of censorship.

  38. Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If AOL wants a strong anti-spam law passed so spammers can more easily have criminal charges or civil lawsuits brought against them, they ought to consider completely stopping the filtering so their customers get overwhelmed with junk e-mail. When the customers complain, AOL then tells the customer to contact their congressperson and complain about it and demand something be done.

  39. NEWSFLASH: Corporations determine your rights! by ObviousGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I happen to believe in the sanctity of the Freedom of Speech. I do not subscribe to your concept of corporate control of rights.

    I don't know where this idea comes from that just because you are a business it means that you can do whatever you want, including infringing upon rights guaranteed by the government.

    This is a sad double standard being applied to "unwanted" emails. The KKK and the NOI can publicly advertise their unwanted speech because the First Amendment protects them. They cannot be barred from advertising in newspapers, they cannot be barred from advertising on billboards, and they cannot be barred from posting in open forums. But spammers don't have these rights?

    You better think about that position a little.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:NEWSFLASH: Corporations determine your rights! by mstockman · · Score: 1

      They cannot be barred from advertising in newspapers, they cannot be barred from advertising on billboards, and they cannot be barred from posting in open forums. But spammers don't have these rights?

      Of course they have those rights. Any time the spammers want to pay to post a billboard, place an ad, or take the time to post in open forums they can, just like everyone else. They're not allowed, however, to make me or my ISP pay for that, which they do when they bombard my e-mail accounts with crap.

      You're free to stand up in a public forum and shout all manner of nonsense. You're not free to use my house for your podium. Your right to free speech isn't infringed simply because I won't let you stand on my property to shout. A spammer's right to speak isn't infringed by AOL saying "Speak all you want, but not on our servers." Why is this so hard to understand?

    2. Re:NEWSFLASH: Corporations determine your rights! by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      The KKK and the NOI can publicly advertise their unwanted speech because the First Amendment protects them. They cannot be barred from advertising in newspapers

      Yes they can. The newspaper owners can say to the KKK, 'No, piss off, we don't want your dirty money, and we don't want your adverts soiling our newspaper's reputation.'

      they cannot be barred from advertising on billboards

      Yes they can. The billboard owner can say to the KKK, 'No, piss off, we don't want your dirty money...' etc.

      and they cannot be barred from posting in open forums.

      Like, say, Slashdot? Just watch anything pro-KKK go to -1 in seconds.

      But spammers don't have these rights?

      Sure they do. But AOL have the same rights the newspaper owner, the billboard owner and the forum owner have: the right to say 'piss off'.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:NEWSFLASH: Corporations determine your rights! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't know where this idea comes from that just because you are a business it means that you can do whatever you want, including infringing upon rights guaranteed by the government.

      You know, if you're such an advocate of free speech, there's at least a chance that you know what it means, right? So you know that the notion of free speech-- as a literal right, not as a principle-- is embodied in the first amendment to the Constitution. Right? And you know, therefore, that the first amendment defines what your right to free speech actually is. Right?
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
      See the important part right up there in front? "Congress shall make no law." (Surely one of the most beautiful phrases ever uttered in the English language, by the way. Right up there with "We the people.") It doesn't say "AOL shall make no acceptable use policy." AOL is a private company, not a public agency of the government.

      Now, let's talk about your comparison to the KKK. You said,

      The KKK and the NOI can publicly advertise their unwanted speech because the First Amendment protects them.

      Let's get more specific about this. The first amendment doesn't give anybody a right or the permission to do anything. It merely puts a restriction on what the government can do. So instead of saying that the KKK and the NOI can advertise because the first amendment protects them, it's more accurate to say that Congress cannot prevent the KKK or the NOI from advertising because the first amendment protects them. This distinction is important, as you'll soon see.

      They cannot be barred from advertising in newspapers...

      By Congress? No. The KKK cannot be barred by act of Congress from advertising in newspapers. Can an individual newspaper refuse to run a KKK ad? Yes. The first amendment doesn't apply here. The first amendment doesn't say, "The New York Times ad sales department shall make no business decision abridging the freedom of speech." The first amendment, if I may personify, doesn't give a damn what The New York Times ad sales department does.

      The same thing applies to the bit about billboards and the bit about open forums. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and that includes billboards and the Internet.

      But spammers don't have these rights?

      Yes, they do. Spammers, just like you, me, and the KKK, have the right to speak their minds in whatever medium and on whatever message without Congress getting in their way. The first amendment guarantees that. Since, however, AOL is not Congress, the first amendment does not apply to this situation, and the spammers' right to free speech is not being abridged.

      You better think about that position a little.

      Right back atcha, OG.
      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:NEWSFLASH: Corporations determine your rights! by bhamm · · Score: 1

      This is a sad double standard being applied to "unwanted" emails. The KKK and the NOI can publicly advertise their unwanted speech because the First Amendment protects them. They cannot be barred from advertising in newspapers, they cannot be barred from advertising on billboards, and they cannot be barred from posting in open forums. But spammers don't have these rights?

      if they're purposefully falsifying their identity when spamming.. then you bet your ass they shouldn't have that right. That goes for all spammers. They should be required to use accurate 'from' information and severely punished for using/taking over some poor bastard's personal email address in an effort to cloak thier true idendity.

      that said.. true identity or not, Apple Mail has been doing a fantastic job of screening my email. I get about 350 per week flagged and sent to the 'spam' folder. I'd say it's about 98% accurate. Then they're deleted after a 7 day hold, in case a legitimate email was to have been tagged wrong.

    5. Re:NEWSFLASH: Corporations determine your rights! by Sir+Tristam · · Score: 1
      Slashdot: We've got 'Friend' and 'Foe' designations; is it possible to make one that's 'Just Plain Stupid'?

      Let's try to make this Obvious for ObviousGuy. Who owns AOL's servers? Do the spammers pay for them? Do the spammers pay for the electricity? Do the spammers pay for the OC3 to the internet? No, AOL pays for all of those. Therefore, since they own them, AOL gets to say how they are used.

      You state you believe in the sanctity of Freedom of Speech. That's great. However, it's not being violated at all here. There's not a single thing that AOL has done that prevents the spammers from using their own money to say anything that they want. Rent billboards, print fliers and mail them, start their own online service and get subscribers to spam. All AOL has done is say that the spammers cannot use the resources of AOL to conduct the spammer's 'business'.

      What was being violated here was private property rights. AOL owns the servers and pays for the data lines, they have the right to determine their use. Are you stating that you believe that a corporation does not have the right to determine how their assets are used, just because they are a corporation? That's the only way to read what you've posted about 'corporate control of rights'. No, they're trying to control their own assets...and so are you.

      Chris

    6. Re:NEWSFLASH: Corporations determine your rights! by kahrhoff · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot!!! No rights are guarenteed to us by the government. All of our rights are derived from nature. The first amendment and all others only tell us what the government can not do. It is in no way meant to limit the contracts that individuals can voluntarily enter into; including usage agreements with AOL.

  40. wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    there is a claim that spam costs money. Money to the ISP for bandwidth and money to the end user for reading/deleting. is this really true? well certainly I delete lots of spam and it costs me time. but what about the ISP?

    I would guess that deleting spam is about as expensive as transmitting it for an ISP. that is the processor intensive task of scoring and removing a spam probably is a wash with the processor light task of tranmitting and storing it. Now for the sake of argument lets just guess a wild number for the cost of filtering or passing along a spam. lets say 0.001 dollars.

    if that were true then a billion spam deleted would cost AOL 1million dollars per day (plus the ones that got through). that would be a third of a billion dollars a year. THat seems way to high. So it must be less. SO maybe its 0.000001 cents?? that would come to a third of a million dollars a year.

    My guess is that the latter is probably a good guess. why? well how many engineers has AOL assigned to the de spamination? perhaps a third of a million dollars worth every year? it would of course not make sense to spend more on de spamination than the harm it costs.

    so anyhow assuming this wild guessing is within an order of magnitude then the proper charge to fine a spammer would be some multiple of 0.000001 dollars per spam sent. which is not an awful lot.

    so is spam really that costly to ISPs??? Maybe not

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      You are only counting immediate monitary issues. You are forgetting user base affects. Sure they have a huge user base of millions of users. But what happens when they fail to meet a majority of the customer's requests for spam free email or even for less spam? They loose customers. That hits them where it hurts, the bank account. Where do the customers go? Probably MSN. Is that something AOL wants?

      No.

      robi

    2. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by ExileInParadise · · Score: 1

      If the ISP has an abuse mail and someone reads it and researches the spam etc etc etc. Most large ISPs do have such an address and people who deal with abuse notices including spam. Yes, it costs money. Anyone who pays per unit for connectivity a month, like many webhosting services charge, is losing some of their paid-for bandwidth to spam... and if they go over their monthly limit, they have to pay for more bandwidth? Finally people who's mailboxes are size limited unless they pay for an account would probably appreciate getting a larger mailbox for free by not having it clogged with spam. If the mailbox runs out, you can either fight spam for the rest of your life or pony up cash for a bigger better mailbox, so the spam problem doesn't bite so hard. I could keep going forever, but yes, spam costs money... but not to the spammer. They foist their costs off on everyone else, without asking.

    3. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by goombah99 · · Score: 1
      the comments so far to my post are interesting. So far two replys have said my estimates are too low and one says they are too high.

      my estimates were based on a wild but rational guess that AOL spends between a hundred thousand and 10 million dollars per year in all costs fighting spam. by all costs I mean people setting up complaint websites, engineers to figure out how to recognize spam, etc.... Of course some costs are recoverable. like if I have to buy a bigger mailbox this costs AOL nada, infact it makes them money.

      in any case if you accept these estimates as a rational range, and in fact if we just pick a number in this range: lets say 360,000$ per year. then the cost per spam at a billion per day is 0.000001 dollars per spam to AOL. If you think that's low then well multipy it by ten if you want.

      is that cheap or expensive?

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    4. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      wow, this is some voodoo math if I've ever seen some...
      your assumptions are pretty poor, for example:

      how can you possibly assume that the cost of a spam is only in 1) the bandwidth required to receive the spam and 2) the amount of processor time spent to score and delete the messages?

      The most costly aspect of spam for AOL is the damage to its image, and the consequent loss of its user base. That in turn, has a consequent loss in stock price.

      also, i like how you relate the "despamination" costs of the salaries of the engineers with the costs of spam to the ISP.

      here's your logic:
      "it would of course not make sense to spend more on de spamination than the harm it costs"

      well, this is true, but what can you logically conclude from this? only that the harm it costs is AT LEAST as much as the cost of "de spamination"

      this DOES NOT mean that:
      (harm done by spam) == (cost of de spamination)
      as you imply in your post.
      in fact, quite the opposite, if I were company, would I embark on an endeavor if I only expected to breakeven? HELL NO. a company would only try to do something like despamification or new features in a piece of software if it expected to come out ahead. This means that:
      (harm done by spam) >> (cost of engineers to de spaminate)

      also, I think you severely lowballed the cost of the engineers doing the despamification. a third of a million gets you ~5-6 engineers? If they are sucessfully filtering 1 billion spam a day, they need more than that just for the IT personnel keeping the processing power running.

      Also, you are confusing the costs to the ISP. don't forget that AOL will still incur the costs of deleting the spam, the costs of the bandwidth to receive the spam, and ON TOP OF THAT the costs of the engineers.

      so instead of:
      (harm done by spam) == (cost of engineers to despam)
      it is much more accurately depicted by the following:
      (harm done by spam) >> (cost of engineers to despam) + (cost of bandwidth to receive spam) + (cost of processing power to score and delete spam)

    5. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What the hell are you talking about?

      The main costs of spam are probably:
      1) the increased bandwidth required to accept all that spam into AOL's network in addition to all the other Internet traffic coming in

      2) the increased capacity of their mail servers to store and process all that spam in addition to the legitimate mail they have to process

      3) the cost of employing an entire department of people whose job is to try to reduce the amount of spam going around

      4) support costs from customers who complain about receiving spam that should have been blocked or about not receiving legitimate mail that was blocked by mistake

      5) badwill (opposite of goodwill) due to the association of their company with spam (everybody knows - or thinks they know - AOL users receive more spam than users of many other ISPs)

      Did I miss anything?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by Kohath · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Dude.

      there is a claim that spam costs money. Money to the ISP for bandwidth and money to the end user for reading/deleting. is this really true?

      Then later:

      I would guess that deleting spam is about as expensive as transmitting it for an ISP.

      If deleting it costs money, and not deleting it costs money, then it costs money.

    7. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      Couldn't AOL just set up a (few hundred) server(s) to weed out as many as they can by determining which email addresses are linked to which unsubscribe links? In other words, every time an email comes to a user through alex@spamportal.net it goes to www.legitsoundingsite.com/unsubscribe?email=whatev er If they set it up to just weed out enough to make it not overload the servers, and still have the rest going through to the trash like it is now (or like I'd assume it is now, thank God I know enough not to use AOL,) then it should eventually cut down quite a bit. The spam isn't only slowing down their access, and costing them money. It's slowing down ours because of their inability to control their l-users.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    8. Re:wow that's expensive or is it cheap. by Seahawk · · Score: 1

      1000 sysadmins dedicated to setting up spam filters dont block 1000 times as much spam as a single sysadmin dedicated to spam blocking is.

      More likely the 1000 would only block something like 1-5% more spam compared to the single guy - THATS why youre argument isnt valid...

  41. Re:AOL members aren't sending 5.5 million spams a by buswolley · · Score: 1

    to aol engineers 5.5 million emails start to feel like spam when it shows up in their mail boxes

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  42. When you're right... by kwerle · · Score: 1

    You're right:
    National Do Not Call List

    I do agree, though, that the email protocols could use serious fixing.

  43. It works!! by NoDoZ · · Score: 1

    Wow, it works great, I only got 24 junkmail emails in my AOL mail box today!!

    (seriously.....)

    1. Re:It works!! by marmoset · · Score: 1

      Do you have any legitimate contacts with self-hosted email servers (i.e. Unix-savvy DSL subscribers?) Because the odds are, their mail to you was dropped, too. My suggestion: use a less lossy mail provider (i.e., just about anyone) and do your _own_ mail filtering client side, using a smart client (e.g Apple's Mail.app) or a smart client side tool (e.g. PopFile.)

  44. huh? by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Oh, please...half? Who's side are you on?

    10 per day total....4 filtered as spam....2 filtered wrong, leaving you with 8 per day legitimate? You only get 2 real spams per day per 10 mails? I have three accounts, and my numbers are the opposite from yours, and I think I', closer to the norm. I simply cannot recall a time when a legitimate mail was flagged as spam by my filters (PS X Mail for the last 1.5 yrs.)

  45. Intelligent filters: aka AI by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    You bet it is hard! It is writing an AI agent to live on your server and interact with messages generated by humans (indirectly).

    When you can write a filter that will only delete all spam and let 100% of the legit mail through, then you have either created an all knowing program, God, or you have the knowledge of the origin of all communication and the intention of the sender, God.

    It can't be done.

    robi

  46. Microsoft ads on Slashdot by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    Speaking of spam... Slashdot should give its user information database, including names and email addresses, to Microsoft, free of charge, so that Microsoft can send 100 Visual Studio advertisements daily to each person in the aforementioned database.

    Seriously, now... I always click on the Microsoft ads and then hit the back button once their page finishes loading. It creates extra loads on their web servers. It probably costs them something. It makes them think that people are actually interested in their shit (as opposed to the realistic fact that people only use their shit because they're forced to), etc. And I'm sure that the good guys, like the folks at OSDN, benefit from people like me clicking on Microsoft's stupid ads.

    1. Re:Microsoft ads on Slashdot by mpost4 · · Score: 1

      I think they do sell our address, or some one does e-mail hunts here, I created a address just for use a slashdot ( mailfromslashdot@mikeoconnor.net ) and now most of my spam ends up at that address, hummmm, I wonder?

    2. Re:Microsoft ads on Slashdot by swtaarrs · · Score: 1

      Yes, I said that Visual Studio is good, so that's flamebait. GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!

  47. OT: Little grey orb by user name on posts. by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    "There's no reason AOL can't censor you, and there's nothing to stop the Slashdot mods putting you to -1"

    So I finally used that little grey orb for "friend, foe, neutral". I wonder if it can help filter out dribble? I am liking that system.

    robi

  48. AOL spam engineers? by ewhenn · · Score: 1

    I hear they were former Hormel employees.

  49. First amendment. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    There is no first ammendment right to sell my 5 year niece penis enlargment pills.


    There is less first amendment protection for commercial speech.

    Even if it protected, you have no right to use my bandwidth, my disk space, my processing power, and to tresspass on my machines to advertise to me.

  50. How? by siskbc · · Score: 1
    Here's how many pieces of putrid canned ham have been spewed my way in the past few days:

    23 February: 1095 spams, 7,821,318 bytes

    How? Christ almighty, I probably get like 6 a day (that's *before* filtering). And my username is four letters long. And our mailserver at school got rooted (and someone stole the list). On the mailserver I run, I have *never* received a piece of spam (over a year).

    Do you have your real email address up on a web page w/o obfuscation? What's going on here? Because spam seems to be a much greater problem for some people than others. I still don't like it, but it must suck to be you.

    btw, how many false negatives/positives do you get?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:How? by StarOwl · · Score: 5, Interesting
      My spam counts tend to get run up because of how my eight-year-old domain is set up (all incoming mail, regardless of the to address gets directed to the same inbox) and because I've made use of tagged addresses.

      Having all email routed to my inbox means that my figures above include dictionary attacks.

      Using tagged addresses also runs up the total a lot. Every time I give out my email address, either on a registration form or in a public posting, I use a different tag.

      I started tagging addresses in the early days of spam. Remember when we foolishly thought we could attach a disclaimer to usenet posts along the lines of "send me spam, and I'll bill you $50 under the anti-fax laws"? Well, I was dumb. I figured that in order to "prove" that unsolicited email was unsolicited, I had to have some proof of how the spammer got my email address, and that I had a clear disclaimer.

      The good news: I have a pretty good idea of which of my online activities generate spam (e.g., posts to control.cancel and *.test, my NIC registrations, and usenet group-creation votes all seem to be popular for the spam-database trollers)

      The bad news: I can easily get hit 30, 40, or 50 times for any one mass-spewing a spammer decides to do.

      The totals above contain NO false positives -- they're all tied to tagged addresses which only produce spam. Not included are the 50 or so false negatives I get a day, which get tackled through other means.

    2. Re:How? by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Counting multiple e-mail addresses skews the statistics bit. How many spams do you receive per day per e-mail address?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:How? by GoRK · · Score: 1

      It's comforting to hear about other users who have "False Positives" and "False Negatives" files for their spam filters. I only get about half of the spam you do, but I don't have any @domain.tld catchall addresses either... (Though I do use tagging)

      ~GoRK

    4. Re:How? by SethJohnson · · Score: 1
      >> Do you have your real email address up on a web page w/o obfuscation?

      Really good point here. web spidering email collectors will gather email addresses from webpages and add you to their lists. Usually, you can fix this by not putting your own address on your own pages. Where it gets painful is that if you subscribe to any email lists, sometimes people will archive these lists on their websites and any message you posted to the list will contain your full email address out in the open on the website. I once did a search for my email address on google and the ONLY place it appeared was on SuSE's mailing list archive. I wrote to the administrator on several occaisions asking him to regsub the html to change the @ symbol for something like '[a]'. He never got around to it and said it would be unlikely for my address to be comprimised by a web spider.
      --end of rant--
    5. Re:How? by voot · · Score: 1

      heh, thats a good idea, too bad it didnt work, and what did that page say that is down? http://www.rahul.net/starowl/email.html

    6. Re:How? by Patrick13 · · Score: 1
      web spidering email collectors will gather email addresses from webpages and add you to their lists

      I have been converting all my mailto's into unicode for a while now. The cool thing is that unicode is compatible with browsers since HTML 3, so most (ie 99.999%) of users can see it, but to spam bots its garbage:

      example: mailto:fake@fake.com is:
      <a href="&#109;&#097;&#105;&#108;&#116;&#111;&#058;&# 102;&#097;&#107;&#101;&#064;&#102;&#097;&#107;&#10 1;&#046;&#099;&#111;&#109;">email</a>
      And it really has reduced the overall amount of spam I get. Now if only I could get spamming my contact handles from my domains, I'd probably be nearly spam free.

      But I don't do it manually, there's a site that will do it for you: http://fantomaster.com/fantomasSuite/mailShield/fa mshieldsv-e.cgi
      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    7. Re:How? by windlord · · Score: 1

      Was just about to enter my email address into the site for encoding into unicode before i suddenly got this creepy feeling.

      WHAT IF THE WEBSITE IS BEING RUN BY A SPAMMER??!!

      Great sneeky idea when you think about it.

    8. Re:How? by Patrick13 · · Score: 1
      The site, fantomaster, is fairly famous in the seo world.

      Anyhow nothing says that you can't enter it in the following manner:
      ----
      .com = &#046;&#099;&#111;&#109;

      domain = &#100;&#111;&#109;&#097;&#105;&#11 0;

      @ = &#064;

      your.name = &#121;&#111;&#117;&#114;&#046;&#110;&#097;&#109;&# 101;
      ----

      In any order you want. I doubt that they are so interested in "harvesting" that they are going to try to piece invalid emails together.

      Anyhow, I have been using the site for about 3 years and haven't had any spam on a few publically visible email addresses, excluding stuff that was "dictionaried" or that someone manually harvested (ie nigerian fraud email).

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
  51. Mommy-spam by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Back when Blue Mountain Greeting Cards was a multi-zillion-dollar dotcom, my wife coined the term "Mommy-spam" for the cutesy stuff her mom would send from her AOL account....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Mommy-spam by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
      heheheheheheheh.

      i knew i wasn't the only one who needed the reverse aol spam filter! i think i'm going to send your post to her so she knows i'm not alone in hating "mommy-spam" mail!

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  52. Dammit Dad! by psxndc · · Score: 4, Funny
    Mom told you to stop giving the pr0n companies your real email address.

    *shaking head*

    psxndc

    --

    The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

  53. Not So Hard When... by Bilbo · · Score: 2, Informative
    I guess it's not so hard to hit 1B rejects in a day when they start rejecting ALL email from certain major ISP's....

    I'm not sure what the problem is, but I just discovered this evening that all mail from my Time Warner/Roadrunner account is being bounced by AOL. Gives me some truncated error message, so I don't even know what the problem is.

    Cute. :-/

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
  54. How ironic... by revmoo · · Score: 1
    I find it horribly ironic that AOL cans more spam than Hormel(the company that makes the stuff). I have to wonder what the motivation is for these spammers, I mean does anyone here actually know anybody that has purchased something from a spam email? I don't care how good the deal on something is, even if it's genuine, I wont purchase it if I got spammed about it

    --
    I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
    1. Re:How ironic... by forkboy · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering the same thing, but SOMEONE has to be buying or else they'd stop doing. (At least that's the theory)

      Hopefully it will go away as people stop falling victim to it and more legislation gets passed.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  55. rate based limiting by h2odragon · · Score: 1

    after your mailserver has sent to $N @aol.com addresses, they begin to silently drop further emails for some period of time. When your subscribers are (to put it most chairitably) not extremely computer literate; your only option might be to feed your aol subscribers as a separate job, sending many more copies of the same email over the wire than would be necessary otherwise.

  56. Some are configured to reject ALL outside email by Kakurenbo+Shogun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently AOL users can set up their accounts to reject ALL email originating outside AOL (as if the rest of the internet were worse SPAMmers than AOL folks). Amazingly, this setting is turned on on some accounts (many, I suspect) without them even knowing it. I run a webserver for a few businesses, and we get LOTS of mail bounced back from AOL account for this reason. It's a real pain when, for example, an AOL customer is trying to sign up on our site, and their account activation key gets bounced back to us because of this stupid setting. I bet they're counting all these messages in their total.

    --
    Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
    1. Re:Some are configured to reject ALL outside email by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please forgive me for being an AOHell Dork, but I signed up back in the early 90's when the choices were either them or CompUServ, and I've been too lazy to change.

      Yes, the master screenname (AOL allows up to seven screennames) can set the e-mail blocking for each name...they can all be different. So, my kid is only allowed to receive e-mail from known addresses, while my junkmail account (the one I use whenever I *have* to give out an address to some website) is left wide open (I rarely look at it), and my spouse's is different still. So, while all the users may not know their settings, whoever did the master account setup does.

      Lately, I've been using the beta AOL Communicator, which seems to be catching roughly +90% of the spam before it hits my inbox, and I've only noticed one false positive over the last month.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  57. we got... by RyLaN · · Score: 1

    spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam..

    but i dont like spam!

    --
    At least the war on the environment is going well
  58. Of course.. by Templar · · Score: 1

    As of this moment, AOL is rejecting everything from (my local) RoadRunner mail server (nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com). It's pretty easy to stop that many messages when you're blocking all mail from one of the biggest ISPs in the country.

  59. Still not the solution by mabu · · Score: 1

    Good: ISPs are finally recognizing people hate spam and using it as a marketing tactic.

    Bad: ISPs still are clueless. Filtering will never be effective. Until mail relay hijacking is globally criminalized and aggressively prosecuted, nobody will ever see any substantive reduction in spam.

  60. If you could press a button... by FyRE666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember some survey from years ago that asked "if you could press a button and someone on the other side of the World would die, but you'd recieve 1,000,000 dollars, would you do it?". I'm now wondering, if you could press a button, and a spammer, somewhere would die - would YOU do it? Scary as it seems to me, I'd probably say "yes"...

  61. Thats enought spam to feed a small country by dregs · · Score: 1

    (Had to be said)

  62. That's funny by funkdancer · · Score: 1

    Because I just added @aol.com to my blocked senders list in the bluebottle.com anti-spam system that is protecting my account.

    Occasionally I review the ones that are "pending verification" to see if there are any valid machine sent mails that cannot be authenticated because noone is reading the authentication challenges.

    And I just got sick of seeing the @aol.com addresses there. I know noone who uses aol.com anyway - and if I did, I'd need to have a chat with them about changing ISPs.

    FWIW (not much I guess)...

    --
    ISO certified == THX certified
  63. More effective solutions exist by stygar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good for AOL and their subscribers. But I think I have a simpler way to block a billion spam messages/day: just go to Alan Ralsky's house and cut all his datalines?

  64. The untold story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My provider is of the opinion that email is a luxury--they provide it but make no guarantees--and it shows. I'd switch but they are the only ISP that can provide me with broadband.

    I run an email server for my private needs. It is not an open relay and I do not spam but there is one RBL that has decided that any mail coming directly from the user IP address space of my provider is suspicious. I've never had a problem but my fiance, Kim, has run into a few servers that bounce her emails.

    If you've guessed that AOL is now blocking mail from my server then you guessed correct. Kim doesn't have many contacts on AOL and they don't get much mail from her but she discovered, within the last week, that mail to any of these contacts bounces back.

    So AOL's solution to block spam is to use RBL's--the message specifically mentions the familiar RBL that blocks my address range. I understand that the RBL's are in a difficult situation because their task is monumentally difficult but at least one has chosen an easy way out. I've long considered this RBL to be practicing bad netizenship and I now feel justified because their services are being utilitized by the provider who has been historically associated with bad netizens.

  65. It's mutual. by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

    * ^From:[ ]*[a-z0-9_]+@aol\.com$
    #
    * ! ^X-Loop:.*mydomain
    * ^TO_me@mydomain\.com
    #
    {
    # Make a temporary file of the message to be returned
    :0c:formail.lock
    # Discard whitespaces, insert a leading blank
    | expand | sed -e 's/[ ]*$//g' | sed -e 's/^/ /' > return.tmp
    # Prepare and send the rejection
    :0:formail.lock
    | (formail -r -I"Subject: Rejected mail: Recipient refusal" \
    -A"X-Loop: rejected-mail@mydomain.com" ; \
    echo "Sorry, but your e-mail was rejected because the From: header" ; \
    echo "didn't seem to include your real name. This is an automated" ; \
    echo "message; replying to it won't work." ; \
    echo "--- begin rejected mail ---" ; \
    cat return.tmp ; \
    echo "--- end rejected mail ---" ; \
    rm -f return.tmp) \
    | /usr/sbin/sendmail -t
    }

    1. Re:It's mutual. by Technician · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this type of filter is not immune from collatoral dammage. I travel. I have a mailbox in the Cayman Islands. They don't have an open relay (thank goodness). I can fetch my mail from anywhere except AOL who force you to use their proprotiary mailbox. (can't fetch POP mail from within AOL). Even though I send mail from which ever local ISP I happen to be using at the time, my reply to is pointed to my Cayman Islands mailbox. It is valid. The above filter would create a bounce message except for times I am actualy in the Cayman Islands. It assumes my reply to is invalid and forged. It is valid and not forged. I get replies sent there.
      I do not check the spam box provided my my national ISP. It just gets emptied once in a while. I do not have a major ISP inbox that I use. They are all far too atractive to dictionary spam attacks. Therefore I don't use them for my inbox, however having a nationwide ISP for traveling and internet access is very nice. It's the big ISP mailboxes that are useless.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  66. It also dose many false positives by Cyberglich · · Score: 1

    I work for a major computer hardware makers and offen when we email software patches to aol adress the mailes get eaten! Happens alot on hotmail as well. and no we don't spam.

  67. Do You Suppose... by raumdass · · Score: 1

    "In addition, AOL *spam engineers* say they receive 5.5 million spam submissions each day"

    Do you suppose they get to put "Spam Engineer" on their resume?

  68. The real story by hubbah · · Score: 2, Funny

    All captured spam is sent to a giant warehouse in Arizona for processing. There, through amazing manipulation by ex-Netscape engineers, the messages are turned in AOL free demo CDs -- it takes about 15 messages to make a single one-billion-hours-free CD -- and then shipped for distribution to all 50 states and overseas. Thus, each piece of spam is repurposed and recycled. They try not lot a single go to waste, but quite obviously, they can hardly keep up.

  69. An efficient anti-spam weapon by SysKoll · · Score: 5, Informative
    So your old email accounts are spammed to death, huh?

    If you want to get rid of spam, do this:

    1. Create a "secret" email account from a reputable provider. Make it unguessable. Add some digits or weird long strings. Don't give it to anyone.

    2.Go to spamgourmet.com and create an account. It's free and open source. In the "forward emails to" field, enter your secret email.

    3. Give spamgourmet addresses to your friends. If your account name is Joe6Pack, give your pal Jack Daniels an address Jack.Daniels.Joe6Pack at spamgourmet dot com. To greatdeal.com, give greatdeal.com.Joe6Pack at spamgourmet dot com. This way you know who has what address. Those spamgourmet addresses are disposable.

    All the emails sent to your various spamgourmet addresses are forwarded to your secret account.

    4. If Jack, who is a friggin' idiot running XP and Outlook, gets yet another Kletz-like virus, the content of his Outlook address book will be compromized and all these addresses harvested by spammers. Just go to spamgourmet.com and disable the compromized address. Tell Jack he's a fool. Give him another disposable address if needed... Until next time.

    If greatdeal.com turns out to be a spammer, just disable their address.

    5. After a couple of months, disable your old email accounts, the ones that are spammed to death right now.

    6. No more spam. Or if you get spam, just disable the spammed address and report the spammer to spamhaus.org. You'll never be spammed more than once.

    Works for me.

    -- SysKoll
    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  70. what i don't understand is... by lordsid · · Score: 1

    ...why everyone has such a big problem with spam.

    i have a personal email address that gets absolutely no spam, except for the crap that my family sends me. then i have 3 other emails addresses that are used for things such as my webpage, signing up for stuff, and for posting places.

    i don't give a damn if those three addresses get spammed because it falls on blind eyes. so why waste the time dealing with spam when you can just get a new email addy? is this just a matter of laziness or masochism?

    --
    IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    1. Re:what i don't understand is... by eaddict · · Score: 1

      It works until on of your e-mailers leaves your messages on a message that they forward. I had a relatively quiet e-mail account. My grandmother-in-law e-mailed everyone a message. That message went out NOT cleaned up (ie all the old addresses left in). Seems the spammers look everywhere!

      --
      "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
  71. AOL rejected 1 billion pieces of *email* by SSpade · · Score: 1

    Yeah, most of it was spam. AOL makes it so trivial to harvest AOL email addresses that they're a major target. But a chunk of the mail randomly thrown away wasn't spam. It was email people had asked for that was discarded by faulty spam filters.

  72. Re:Unbeleivable. by StarOwl · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If it weren't for what being slashdotted would do to my web traffic quota, I'd post a URL to a days worth of spam.

    However, nothing says I can't post a screenshot of my spam-box as viewed via pine.

    PINE 4.44 MESSAGE INDEX <Rahul> /backupspam-030305 Msg 1,278 of 1,278 NEW

    N 1249 Mar 5 eznorton54998236@h (3428) RE: Protect Your Computer !!
    N 1250 Mar 5 gspaMellie (6416) Adult News Letter starowl-960916a@tr
    N 1251 Mar 5 ifnMaye (6461) Online Phree Slutz starowl-960922a@
    N 1252 Mar 5 qxyMicheal (6320) 100% MEMBERSHIP TO PORN SITES staro
    N 1253 Mar 5 ihvbLeonie (6487) 100% Freee Porn Membership starowl-
    N 1254 Mar 5 golMaple (6457) Don't Buy Porn Get it Free starowl-9
    N 1255 Mar 5 oeuLeonila (6436) Porn is Freee!!! Stop Getting Ripped
    N 1256 Mar 5 alyMeridith (6373) Adule Newz Letter starowl-960911a@tr
    N 1257 Mar 6 kxwLili (6464) re:Free Porn starowl-961017a@triskel
    N 1258 Mar 5 tibsLuis (6413) Stop Paying For Porn starowl-961010a
    N 1259 Mar 6 ewbMagaret (6485) Dilicious Free Girlz starowl-960928a
    N 1260 Mar 5 Blake (2748) My Slumber Party
    N 1261 Mar 5 Blake (2749) My Slumber Party
    N 1262 Mar 5 Blake (2749) My Slumber Party
    N 1263 Mar 5 Blake (2749) My Slumber Party
    N 1264 Mar 5 Blake (2749) My Slumber Party
    N 1265 Mar 5 Blake (2749) My Slumber Party
    N 1266 Mar 5 Blake (2746) My Slumber Party
    N 1267 Mar 5 Rapid Deals By Ema (6903) starowl-961213b@triskele.com, Compute
    N 1268 Mar 6 jim zuccaro (8148) Re: Bigger penis in 3 minutes
    N 1269 Mar 6 jim zuccaro (8148) Re: Bigger penis in 3 minutes
    N 1270 Mar 6 jim zuccaro (8148) Re: Bigger penis in 3 minutes
    N 1271 Mar 6 jim zuccaro (8148) Re: Bigger penis in 3 minutes
    N 1272 Mar 5 Rapid Deals By Ema (6905) starowl-961229a@triskele.com, Compute
    N 1273 Mar 5 venom69@earthlink. (1895) $Home Loans!... Debt Consolidation...
    N 1274 Mar 5 Julie Rezdon (12K) re: earn money from porno
    N 1275 Mar 5 Kaye (1921) A beautiful Russian
    N 1276 Mar 6 tanya1963@anjungca (3739) fascinated with yourself
    N 1277 Mar 6 victorcole1 (4749) Hello
    N 1278 Mar 5 carla@island-mail. (4830) Are you a homeowner

    For the poster who asked about the amount of spam-per-address...to be honest, I'm not sure. I didn't keep a good record of how many different tags I've used, and I'm not entirely sure how to adjust for the effects of dictionary attacks.

    I'd guess that I easily somewhere between 70-100 spams per day to the address I originally used in the InterNIC record for my domain, for example, but I haven't kept stats at that level.

    I'm unfortunately running a tar pit. But I've got to make up a measurable portion of submissions to uce@ftc.gov...not that that does any good.

    So yeah, I get way more than my fair share of spam, because of being curious/stupid and tagging my address. I'm certainly not representative of how much spam Joe Average NetUser is getting. However, I think my spamlog may be interesting reading in the context of the overall growth of spam on the net.

    I've been tracking my spam volume in the form above since 10 April 2002. One of these days I need to write up an article on how this is evidence of the expansion of spam.

    One encouraging factoid: The rate of spam volume growth, at least for my little cesspool, seems to be slowing, at least as compared to what I saw during the last half of 2002. I don't know whether this is a real slowing, or just more filtering going on upstream from me, however....

    P.S. -- 15 spams arrived between the time I pasted the listing from pine and my hitting preview a few seconds ago. :(

  73. costs by Datasage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let see here....
    if we have 1 billion spams per day, at roughly 5kb per message, this equals to almost 5TB of wasted bandwidth. This is only what is caught. Now with this we can start estimating the costs per day for dealing with spam.

    Lets consider bandwidth cost $1 per GB, AOL being as large as they are may be able to make that less. At that cost it is $5000 per day. This does not include the cost for extra equiptment to deal with the extra bandwidth, for people to write anti-spam software, etc. i'm going to estimate that it cost AOL over $10000 per day because of spam. or over 3.5 million in one year.

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
  74. They should not be too lauded by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

    seeing as their olden days policies are a good reason for the amount of spam.

  75. Re:Slashdot math at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    1 billion - 5.5 million = 15

    Apples to oranges. The 5.5 million number has nothing to do with the number of SPAM messages blocked per day. 5.5 million is how many spam REPORTS they receive per day. Not everyone reports their SPAM.

    We have no idea how many unreported SPAM is received, or how much of that is reported, based on the facts in the article. The humor was the exagerated implication that a lot of SPAM originates from AOL (or at least appears to). I do not believe the 5.5 million number was factored in to the resulting number "15", nor was it intended to be.

  76. They should thank me by terminal.dk · · Score: 1

    My Honeypot at home has consumed 40.000 mails the last 8 hours, all for aol.com.

    And I just had my honeypot for 2 weeks, and never announced it.

  77. spam that's not spam by a+man+named+bob · · Score: 1

    I recently subscribed to AOHell - 45 free days, I'm a poor college student with no broadband unless I cough up a 100 bucks a month - anyway in the first 12 hours with aol I recieve 20 messages all from "customer service" telling me how to better use my account...

  78. AOL Spam filter so good that.... by jmagilto · · Score: 1

    I cannot send email to AOL users from my self-hosted email server. Good thing I dont usually talk to anyone who uses AOL :*)

    --
    -Bone
  79. Re:Unbeleivable. by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
    For the poster who asked about the amount of spam-per-address...to be honest, I'm not sure. I didn't keep a good record of how many different tags I've used, and I'm not entirely sure how to adjust for the effects of dictionary attacks.

    Probably the best way to figure out which address your email is going to is to check your mail logs.

    The logs that I get from sendmail are pretty useful in that respect (presuming you keep them for any length of time..). If you want, I could probably rewrite the perl tools I used to do that sort of stuff when I was the email admin for a medium sized ISP.

    send me the last 200 lines of your mail log, and I'll see what I can do.
    My login is samuel my domain is bcgreen.com .

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  80. Rape or a beating ? Anyone ?? by AftanGustur · · Score: 1

    Well, I was dumb. I figured that in order to "prove" that unsolicited email was unsolicited, I had to have some proof [google.com] of how the spammer got my email address, and that I had a clear disclaimer

    That's just nuts !! Imagine if the same rule applied to rapes and burglary .. The *victim* would have to prove that he didn't somehow ask for the thing to happen ?

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  81. Not this time... by WiredOni · · Score: 1

    "Frea speach" a common term used to refer to a spammer's claim of free speech giving them the right to spam.

    It is intentionally misspelled to distinguish their version from actual free speech rights.

  82. I promise you that it is. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    As the owner of a small hosting company, I can assure you that spam costs us money.

    Money for bandwidth.

    Money to pay an employee to research blocking it so that it doesn't take up as much bandwidth.

    Money to explain to the clueless end user that the spam didn't originate from our systems.

    Maybe it doesn't hurt the big boys, but for all the "mom and pop" ISPs, there are REAL consequences.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  83. Blocked Telia-net by martins99 · · Score: 1


    If I'm not mistaken, I think that AOL blocked all incoming emails from Telia (*@telia.*) or something for a week because they thought that Telia spammed to much or something..

    Not sure if it was AOL though

  84. If the Internet is an Information Superhighway... by spun · · Score: 2, Funny
    AOL is a busload of screaming ebola victims, vomiting and bleeding on everyone as they pass.

    Wish I could remember where I heard that. Searched google for it, and found this,

    What do you mean by superhighway?
    Free speech is such a slippery little eel... Just when you think the Constitution has it right, you run into an interpretation that fails the "common sense/BS" test. Perhaps an analogy will serve... Think of the computer highway AS a highway.

    There it is again. Some clueless fool talking about the "Information Superhighway." They don't know jack about the net. It's nothing like a Superhighway. That's a bad metaphor.

    Yeah, but suppose the metaphor ran in the other direction. Suppose the highways were like the net. All right! Severe craziness. A highway hundreds of lanes wide. Most with potholes. Privately operated bridges and overpasses. No highway patrol. A couple of rent-a-cops on bicycles with broken whistles. 500 member vigilante posses with nuclear weapons. 237 on ramps at every intersection. No signs. Wanna get to Ensenada? Holler out the window at a passing truck to ask directions. Ad hoc traffic laws. Some lanes would vote to make use by a single-occupant-vehicle a capital offense on Monday through Friday between 7:00 and 9:00. Other lanes would just shoot you without a trial for talking on a car phone.

    AOL would be a giant diesel-smoking bus with hundreds of ebola victims and a toilet spewing out on the road behind it. Throwing dead wombats and rotten cabbage at the other cars most of which have been assembled at home from kits. Some are 2.5 horsepower lawnmower engines with a top speed of nine miles an hour. Others burn nitroglycerine and idle at 120.

    No license tags. World War II bomber nose art instead. Terrifying paintings of huge teeth or vampire eagles. Bumper mounted machine guns. Flip somebody the finger on this highway and get a white phosphorus grenade up your tailpipe. Flatbed trucks with anti-aircraft missile batteries to shoot down the KRUD Traffic Watch helicopter. A little kid on a tricycle with a squirtgun filled with hydrochloric acid.

    No offramps.

    Now that's the way to run an Interstate Highway system

    (I have no idea where this came from--if you know who authored it, let me know, so we can have them arrested.)

    So I still don't know who wrote it, but at least I got a good laugh re-reading the whole piece.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  85. god bless.. by ramzak2k · · Score: 1

    god bless the spammers SPAM engineers ? how cool is that ? Algorithms to filter out spam , tracking systems, ipblocks. they are creating job opportunities here. They are doing what dubya cant do.

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  86. Email viruses by chrisbtoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Straying a bit offtopic, but I suffer way more from being sent email viruses than I ever have from spam. I might see 1 spam (maybe 1k - 20k bytes) every couple of days, whereas I get anything from 20 to 100 copies of Klez or Yaha, at 45k - 188k bytes each per day.

    AFAICT, all those came from the fact that I made the mistake of listing my real email address when I uploaded a Winamp skin. It was up for less than a week in December, and I'm still getting viruses now. The hotmail one I put up to replace it (only ever used for that Winamp skin) gets a similar level.

    --
    Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
    1. Re:Email viruses by Ninja+Master+Gara · · Score: 1
      Unlike Spam, Viruses can be filtered at the ISP level without much chance of false positives (except for viruses which piggyback on real emails without letting the sender know, but even this isn't really a false positive, and the mail server lets the sender know why the mail was blocked)

      We recently performed an upgrade to a virus scanning mail server, now I get notified everytime it blocks a virus, about 20-30 times a day.

      --

      ---
      When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
  87. AOL spam solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am AOL user since 1992 and I never lost any messages; except when I (twice actually) did not pay attention setting the exlusion filters.

    What AOL really needs to do is:
    1) allow more than 100 entries in the exlusion list (500 would be more reasonable)
    2) perform more checking that the email header is really correct (reverse DNS etc). How can it be that spam is injected into the AOL gateway when clearly the FROM address is bogus?

    I receive about 500 spam mails per month into my account; 20 real messages. More than 20 juk mails for every real message. I spend way too much time clicking the DELETE button!

  88. Easy way to filter spam if you're an ISP? by olethrosdc · · Score: 1

    At the ISP level it should be pretty easy. The same spam is going to reach a large number of people. I mean, even if the content of a spam message has never been seen before, the fact that the exact same message is being sent to a few thousand users simultaneously should be enough to trigger the filters.

    There is a problem with 'simultaneously' of course. It would be required to tracking the document distances between
    all recently received emails, form clusters and discard the biggest clusters... can be pretty hairy computationally.

    --

    I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)

  89. Re:Unbeleivable. by pytheron · · Score: 1

    Did you piss off an ex-girlfriend or something ? She must have told _everyone_ that you have a really small dick.

    --
    "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
  90. Damn Slashdot Spam! by Ninja+Master+Gara · · Score: 2, Funny
    Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:06 +0000
    Subject: [Slashdot] Metamoderation Results
    From: slashdot@slashdot.org
    To: xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx

    &ltsnip&gt

    Some of your past moderations have been meta-moderated by other Slashdot readers. Here are the exciting results:

    &ltsnip&gt

    You have received this message because you subscribed to it on Slashdot.

    &ltsnip&gt

    SPAM: Spamnix identified this message as spam. This report shows which
    SPAM: rules matched the message and how many points each rule contributed.
    SPAM:
    SPAM: Content analysis details: (6.7 hits, 4 required)
    SPAM: NO_REAL_NAME (0.5 points) From: does not include a real name
    SPAM: CLICK_BELOW (1.5 points) BODY: Asks you to click below
    SPAM: EXCUSE_1 (2.3 points) BODY: Gives a lame excuse about why you were sent this SPAM
    SPAM: FREQ_SPAM_PHRASE (2.4 points) Contains phrases frequently found in spam
    SPAM: [score: 10, hits: click here, help you, received]
    SPAM: [this, thank you, this message, you]
    SPAM: [for]

    --

    ---
    When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
  91. Irony by Ninja+Master+Gara · · Score: 1
    While attempting to post this message slashdot wouldn't accept it. Instead I got:

    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

    Slashdot think it's own email is junk :)

    --

    ---
    When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
  92. Spamarama by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    Are these metrics from AOL supposed to impress us? The only measure that matters from the user's perspective is the amount SPAM that gets through. The only target goal that matters is "Zero Defects." If vendor YYY does a better job of eliminating SPAM from my mail box than vendor XXX, I will go with Vendor YYY. It does'nt matter to me how hard XXX is working.

    Work smarter not harder

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  93. Re:Unbelievable. by daves · · Score: 1

    One encouraging factoid: The rate of spam volume growth, at least for my little cesspool, seems to be slowing, at least as compared to what I saw during the last half of 2002. I don't know whether this is a real slowing, or just more filtering going on upstream from me, however....

    Don't get too excited. I've been tracking since mid-2001. Traffic grows faster in the second half of the year. Must be the Christmas effect.

    --
    People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
  94. small company stats... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The company I work for currently has a grand total of 7 employees working here in the office. It used to be more before the economy fell apart, but I digress.

    Spam became a huge problem here roughly a year ago, and it started taking up too much employee time. So roughly six months ago, we started using Spam Assassin. In that six months, Spam assassin has caught roughly 90% of the spam we get, totalling well over 500,000 spam mails.

    Am I crazy, or is 1/2 million spams for only 7 people in less than six months absolutely insane or what? How can anyone argue that these spammers are running legitamite businesses?

    I think it's high-time for some legis-fuckin-lation to curb this insanity :)

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  95. AOL Haiku by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Much like alcohol;
    AOL - both the problem
    and the solution.

    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

  96. How effective is spam? by oz1cz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Just how effective is spamming from the point of view of the spammer? Do any statistics exist?

    If I advertise a silly product to 50 million email addresses, how likely am I to get customers?

  97. Question. by redtail1 · · Score: 1

    And why aren't they immediately canceling the accounts of every AOL user who sends out spam?

    1. Re:Question. by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      its users submitting spam they received to be blacklisted not users sending spam. I work for an ISP and I deal with spam every single day. typically you can send/forward spam to abuse@ISPDOMAIN to be blacklisted or to make complaints about spammers who are subscribers to the ISP.

      Although it does seem like a lot of spam originates FROM Aol users. I think @aol.com should be on all the RBLs in the world.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  98. Hypocrites by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

    One billion pieces of spam is about how much crap aohell cd's are mass mailed out to every Joe, Dick and Harry.

    If anyone should be blocked, it should be aol themselves.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
  99. So easy to spam... by c1pher · · Score: 1

    ...No wonder it's #1!!

    --
    The Adult Happy Meal - "I'm lovin' it!"
  100. My own mail server by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    It's for reasons like this that pushed me to use my own e-mail server. It's not all that tough to either build your block list or use the list from SPEWS. Just for kicks I greped the mail log for "Access" and found tens of thousands of Access Denied statements.

    After a while the spammer just stops sending, but of course there are plenty more to take their place.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  101. Re:Unbeleivable. by aberson · · Score: 1
    a while back, my friend ebold@ sent me this link and wrote:

    I don't know how well this works, or if it's a well-known solution, but it seemed novel to me. He gives his real address, and then on the next line says, "but if you're a spammer, email me here too, so I can blacklist you." In theory, spammers will pick up both email addresses but legitimate humans will only pick up the real one. Cool...

    but, the page no longer uses that tactic, so maybe it didn't work.

  102. Those who live by the sword... by mcguirez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...shall die by the sword.

    How can AOL complain? The spammers are just
    following AOL's lead!

    Does anyone else find it fitting that AOL [those responsible for a flood of "XXX FREE HOURS" discs each week in my snail mail, magazines, and breakfast cereal] should suffocate under an avalanche of their own electronic hellspawn?

    There is sweet justice after all!

    --
    When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
  103. Just a thought ... by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

    Perhaps start filtering the domains from which the spam originates? I mean you are important, no doubt, but are you important enough to be getting email from any gook domain (no offense anybody), any domail with *offers* in it, netscape.net (lousy kokgobblers), or any domain from whom 98% of the emails are crap?

    Do that and filter any email with the words 'penis', 'sex', 'larger', 'mortgage', 'free', '(several euphamisms for vagina)', 'webcam', etc... and Voila! you can actually read your email in peace.

    Granted it doesn't help much with bandwidth on the outside of the filter, but really - if you get 1000 spam a day what chance does legit email really have of getting read?

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  104. "report spam" button by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    that button is great, actually. you can tell spam the second you see it and instead of opening it, you click "report spam" and it blocks the address, deletes the spam, and sends a note (with your optional comments) to AOL. It's almost as easy as clicking "delete" so I think that a huge percentage of spam is being reported. One-day totals don't mean a lot because users don't check their email every day, but overall, I'd guess the percentage is very high.

  105. Hmm, 5.5 million spam submissions per day by hawthorne · · Score: 1

    ...I have to wonder how many of them are real.

    AOHell seem to ahve rolled out their latest and greates software without bothering to actually give their users any indication of what the fancy new buttons do. As a result, the majority seem to use the 'report as spam' button as a delete key.

    Judging from the AOL spam reports that I see, well over 90% are reporting mails that are definately non-spam - like their replacement PIN numbers from banks, holiday bookings, personal correspondance, order confirmations and so on.

    While it can be interesting to see what a cross section of AOL subscribers get up to in their free time, it is not the best use of my (or any other abuse handler's) time to read about who is going to do what to whom over the weekend.

    Of the remaining 10%, most are due to problems with customers (i.e. misconfigured mail servers etc) which have been sorted before the reports start rolling in, or AOL users reporting SMTP bounce messages as spam(!).

    Aargh!

  106. They did experiments even worse than this by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    Where they wired up a convincing stooge to fake electrical implants and told test subjects to zap the guy. Most of them did it, even though he was screaming. This was to show that people respect authority (even that of a researcher) more than (apparent) physical suffering. Hence authoritarian regime in %country% works.

  107. I agree by jconley · · Score: 1

    But if it is only filtered outgoing, how does stop a spam company from setting up their own ISP and sending from there...

  108. I happen to like Canned SPAM by flsniper · · Score: 1

    Canned Spam fried with some onions, peppers, and mushrooms is YUMMY! Don't think I could eat 1 billion cans of it a day though!

    --
    "This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time."
  109. AOL brand spam by Gorbie · · Score: 1

    Do cans of AOL CDs count as spam? They probably taste better.

  110. More like coercion by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Those who don't want spam blocked are Free to change to another ISP.

    Free? More like coercion. If your local cable monopoly is Time Warner Cable and your phone company has not yet put in DSL, then changing to another ISP will either cost $200,000 (expenses to move to another house) or result in a 10-fold reduction in data transfer rate (switch from broadband to dial-up).

    Of course, this is all moot if instead of deleting spam on the spot, AOL moves spam to a holding zone (much like Hotmail and SpamCop do).

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  111. Re:Rape or a beating ? Anyone ?? by Ironica · · Score: 1

    Actually, that's pretty much how it works for date or acquaintence rape. Random Chance help you if you were wearing a short skirt...

    --
    Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  112. Hotmail blocking over a billion a day by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

    Just as a FWIW, I know for a fact that Hotmail regularly blocks over a billion spam messages a day, though exact numbers are slightly tough to compare since Hotmail counts their messages differently than AOL does (1 message to 100 address = 1 message for Hotmail vs. 100 messages for AOL as I understand it). In total, Hotmail gets about 2.3 billion messages a day, of which about 90% are spam. Typically between 50 and 60% of those spams are blocked without ever being delivered.

    False positives are rather tough to guess because the vast majority of "false positives" are actually the spammers sending their spam out to their own e-mail address and clicking on a "this is not spam" button.

    Ohh, and before anyone spouts out about how all the spam actually comes from AOL or Hotmail, there is actually virtually ZERO spam that really comes from either of these providers. What there is, is a LOT of spam that is send with the From: line listing either Hotmail or AOL (Yahoo, Lycos and Earthlink are other popular addresses). Many of these spams also falsify other headers to try to pretend that the message came through Hotmail or AOL.

  113. filter? by JThundley · · Score: 1

    dude, server side filters are the way to go. I have an attbi account with Brightmail on the server side, and I've never seen more than 10 spams in my mailbox throughought my whole 3 years of using it.

  114. Re:can i be your foe pls pls pls pls by trmj · · Score: 1

    i let you get modded down as a troll, apparantly :

    --
    Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet