Slashdot Mirror


FTC vs Spammers

binaryDigit writes "The San Jose Mercury News has an article on the FTC getting ready to take action on an (alleged) spammer. 'The Federal Trade Commission said today that after receiving about 46,000 complaints it had asked a federal judge to halt the operation.' Too bad it took 46000 complaints to prompt some action, but at least some action is being taken. The FTC will focus on the "deception" involved (innocent and misleading subject lines, bogus (but real) from/reply to addresses, etc)."

268 comments

  1. Government in action by rcathcart · · Score: 5, Funny

    after receiving about 46,000 complaints

    You've got to wonder why they didn't wait for 100,000.
    1. Re:Government in action by dragoncortez · · Score: 4, Funny

      In related news, the former Iraqi Minister of Information held a press conference that the reports of spam are all lies. "These reports of alleged unrequested email are all falsifications of the infidels." He went on to claim that email itself is simply a hallucination brought on by watching Fox News.

      --
      Making stupid comments so you don't have to.
    2. Re:Government in action by Glonoinha · · Score: 3, Funny

      I looked it up. Evidently after 8192, 16384, and 32768, the government considers 46,000 a 'perfect' number.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    3. Re:Government in action by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "In related news, the former Iraqi Minister of Information held a press conference that the reports of spam are all lies. "These reports of alleged unrequested email are all falsifications of the infidels." He went on to claim that email itself is simply a hallucination brought on by watching Fox News. "

      Insightful? Who was enlightened?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Government in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha +2 Informative?

    5. Re:Government in action by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      You realize that this is the 46000 that passed through their spam filters without being identified as spam don't you?

      I understand that it was a slow day so after counting them up that day, they still had time left to file a legal case.

      They never were able to count the volume in earlier days.

      I tend to suspect that this is the volume of spam messages a mid sized ISP (between 1 and 10 thousand subscribers) sees in the average hour.

      I personally receive between 80 and 200 messages a day that popfile identifies as spam.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    6. Re:Government in action by Rick.C · · Score: 5, Funny
      You've got to wonder why they didn't wait for 100,000.

      Thank God they didn't!

      I don't think I could have typed another 54,000.
      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    7. Re:Government in action by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      MOD PARENT UP! +5 FUNNY

      I'm going to burn my Karma in a sacrifice to this fine post!

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    8. Re:Government in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh - our server is getting hammered by these stupid programs that Scan for valid Email addresses. They try every possible combination to glean as many valid Emails from our SMPT server. This has all but shut down our Email system, because we don't have a super high speed connection, or powerful mail systems capable of dealing with this. We've repeatedly complained to the authorities, and they just ignore us. First question they ask is "have you lost more then $10,000?" Sheesh man - I'm barely able to feed myself, and what meager money we get from our customers. So, is this justice? Hardly. Anyway - our capacity is overwhelmed right now, our users are bailing out like rats from a sinking ship.

    9. Re:Government in action by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Rip some MP3s and put them on that computer, claim that someone is trying to steal your MP3s - then claim $150,000 per music file.

      Hell, it worked for the RIAA against that college kid, probably ought to work for you too.

      Or better yet, set up a Priority Email class of user and charge them $1 for every email they receive. Don't actually bother giving this account to anybody, but establish a single account to whom you could charge $1 for every email they receive (perhaps yourself.) Then for every botched attempt they send the system an email sue the spammer for lost potential revenue as you lost the ability to receive email while they hammered you, and you charge $1 for each email so they owe you $1 for each failed connection.

      That last one was recently successfully done by some phone company in Japan (or somewhere) for text message spam - oddly they ignored the ones that went through (and charged the customer .03c apiece for them) - and charged back the spamming company for each attempted but failed attempt because it was deemed lost revenue. I think they won, also, something like $30k ... nothing insane, but still it sets precedent.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  2. About time by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    About time :)

    Lets see if it actually helps deter them or if it just forces them to take different paths to annoying us further...

    -DaedalusHKX

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  3. It's a shame by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a shame that nowhere in the article does the FTC even imply that the spammer will be sent to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

    --
    evil adrian
    1. Re:It's a shame by mingot · · Score: 1

      I think you get a better ass-pounding in state prisons. I've heard nice things about the federal prisons. Especially those that house non-violent offenders.

    2. Re:It's a shame by nrrrdboy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It's a shame that you think state sanctioned torture is acceptable! Why the hell would you endorse rape?!

    3. Re:It's a shame by st0rmcold · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Many people are in the same line of thought I have noticed, they surely wouldn't want it happening to them, but to someone they don't like it's completly acceptable. That's why our justice system is struggling, there are many too many people who see it that way.

      --
      Posting useless rant since 2003.
    4. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The even more shameful thing are the punks who modded this as "funny" and the dozens more who would've if those four morons hadn't beaten them to it.

      I wish people would use their brains once in a while.

    5. Re:It's a shame by DataPath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You know, I've heard that in Federal Prisons, pedophiles are the lowest of the low, and they get "special" treatment from the other inmates. I wonder if spammers are in the same boat?

      --
      Inconceivable!
    6. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they allow conjugal visits?

    7. Re:It's a shame by Polyphemis · · Score: 1

      If anyone here had seen Office Space they'd get the joke. It's a reference to the main characters in the movie expressing their fears over being sent to jail "to a pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison" (I believe the quote went) for creating a virus that gets them a LOT of money, and then infecting the computers of the company they work for.

      It's a good movie.

    8. Re:It's a shame by ralico · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, if they did, it would be a new avenue for pr0n spam, "Get Free pics of spammers getting poiunded in prison..."

      --

      SCO to Hell
    9. Re:It's a shame by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, it was a joke. Your sense of humor probably went down the toilet with your brain:

      Of course no one wants it to happen to them. It wouldn't be a punishment otherwise.

      No one wants to be imprisoned, either, but it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for the government to imprison people that have broken the law. Prison is a form of punishment -- you're not there to get rewarded with cookies.

      --
      evil adrian
    10. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did the see the movie, and while overall it was a classic, that joke just wasn't funny to me.

    11. Re:It's a shame by wwcsa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or: "Planning to pound a spammer in prison? Try the latest in penis enlargement technology...."

    12. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't be a moron. No one is saying that criminals shouldn't be punished for their crimes, but incarceration is to deprive them of their freedom and to protect the society. Not to inflict beatings or anal raping.

      I don't recall a judge, when passing a sentence, saying that "and to suffer humiliation and degragation of human dignity in prison".

    13. Re:It's a shame by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      It was a joke. Ever seen Office Space?

      guess not.

    14. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I know of.

      The trick is to kick somebody's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch.

    15. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a moron -- child molestors, rapists, and murderers all deserve that sort of thing, and most people will agree with me on that.

    16. Re:It's a shame by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      > > [ debate about whether one gets more ass-pounding in federal or state prisons snipped ]
      >
      > It's a shame that you think state sanctioned torture is acceptable! Why the hell would you endorse rape?!

      Whoa, wait a minute there. This is spammer ass we're talking about getting pounded.

      That's not rape. Bestiality, sure, but not human-on-human nonconsensual sex.

      Besides, the fact that he's the "married but lonely" spammer... the irony is positively delicious. Wait'll he finds out just how "lonely" Guido's been, especially having been locked away from his wife for six years, with his only email contacts with the outside world have been thousands of spams telling him about all that h0t 4ss cr4v1ng h4rd d1ck1ng!

      Mr. Westby, while you serve your time, may you be buggered repeatedly (if you don't want Guido's unsolicited dickings every night, just OPT OUT!), may you contract AIDS from said buggerings (if you wanted to be protected from viruses, you should have bought a pirated copy of NORTON SYSTEMWORKS 2003 from George Allen Moore!), may the disease cripple and sicken you for years (you could have taken EFFECTIVE HERBAL REMEDIES to prevent this!), and may you finally die after a protracted but ultimately futile battle with pneumonia.

      May the last thing you hear be the echoing of your raspy breath against the cold steel walls, may the last thing you smell be the latex on the gloves of the medic who intubates you, and may the last thing you taste be your own blood-tinged sputum, and may every other spammer on the face of the earth be watching, live, via webcam.

      Yes, Mr. Westby, you and your kind are that hated.

      FTC - you rule. Sometimes it's necessary to put a few heads on pikes, "pour encourager les autres." Please. MORE HEADS. MORE PIKES.

    17. Re:It's a shame by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      No most people would settle for that. The genral goupthink public want more! Hourly acid enemas, filleting the skin off of prisioners then covering them with salt, or exploratory surgery without the benefit of anesthetics or gags would be more fun to watch.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    18. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spammers too!!!

    19. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the most pointless, worthless post I think I've ever seen. Even first post has a point, but this is like saying "hey, I looked up and saw the sky." WHO GIVES A FUCK?

    20. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a moral issue, moron. It doesn't matter what he deserves for a crime, we do have a judicial system which we are forced to follow.

      You Liberals are all about feeling, but it's about wrong or right. We have punitive damages, jail sentences, death sentences, and in some cases castrations. There's nothing in the books about beatings or anal rapings.

      If you don't like go to the Middle East, Singapore, or Canada where they have more radical implementations of justice. Or write to your representative. Or form your own militia.

      Or develop some rational thought.

    21. Re:It's a shame by jebell · · Score: 1

      I know you're trying to be funny, but the FTC does not file criminal complaints against people. It sues them for money.

      I know one of the attorneys in the "spam" department at the FTC. Nice guy - he's been doing this kind of thing for some time now.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    22. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the most pointless, worthless post I think I've ever seen. Even first post has a point, but this is like saying "hey, I looked up and saw the sky." WHO GIVES A FUCK?

      Obviously you do. How does it feel to be trolled, punk? People like you are such lemmings, easily manipulated to generate any desired reaction. Keep watching TV and eating Fritos, kid, it makes my living more comfortable having morons like you do my dirty work.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!

    23. Re:It's a shame by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      Brings back painful memories? You shouldn't have robbed that bank.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    24. Re:It's a shame by Bob+McCown · · Score: 2, Funny
      It was a joke. Ever seen Office Space?

      I missed it, I was looking for my stapler. Have you seen it? It's red.

    25. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Canada?

    26. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Socialist Monarchy of Kanada. I hear that they won't even allow Bernardo have more than one case of Blue per month, eh? That's just plain wrong.

    27. Re:It's a shame by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      Your stapler can be found here.

    28. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa... A little *ahem* sensitive about the subject, aren't we?

    29. Re:It's a shame by Overt+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... and order some herbal Viagra while you're at it!

    30. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is soooooo funny. You must be a blast to be around at parties, with your witty retorts and excellent social manners. A "barrel of laughs" they call you, and they may not just refer to your body shape.

      Can I be your friend?

    31. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just angry because you're white. Don't be a player-hater.

      Peace.

    32. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It should be criminal to send porn spam to minors. Actually, I'm pretty sure it is. I don't know why it's been condoned until now.

    33. Re:It's a shame by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      That is not true. While I would certainly love for the conditions that you described to be applied to e-mail spammers, I certainly wouldn't want everyone in prison to receive that kind of punishment.

    34. Re:It's a shame by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      If you'd ever had your email box flooded with bounces from messages you'd never sent because some lusing twitiot spammer had used your address as a return address, you'd be sensative too. I know; I have. There isn't anything you can compare a spammer to that wouldn't be insulted by the reference, and as far as I'm concerned, the Death of a Thousand Paper-cuts is too good for them.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    35. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I missed it, I was looking for my stapler. Have you seen it? It's red.

      Yeah, I've seen it.. didn't you get the memo?

    36. Re:It's a shame by Weirsbaski · · Score: 1

      No one wants to be imprisoned, either, but it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for the government to imprison people that have broken the law.

      As long as imprisonment is appropriate for the crime. Murder? Prison. Copyright infringement? No prison. Spamming? Prison in Cuba.

      --

      I am not a sig.
  4. Lonely by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Funny
    The FTC accused Brian D. Westby, of suburban St. Louis, of using the e-mail spam operation to drive business to an adult Web site called "Married But Lonely."

    Hopefully Mr. Westby will heretofore be "Lonely with Guido" in a minimum security facility for at least a few years.

    We can only hope.

    1. Re:Lonely by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well I found the Spam from the site "Married But Lonely." was the most annoying type. I usually fight off most of my Spam mail and after one or 2 tries they stop. but those guys were spamming me once or twice a week. I am really glad the the FTC is handling it. because every time I get a spam from them I forward to uce@ftc.gov and then I bounce the message back (message cannot be deleviver user not found) Hoping other people will do this and flood the relaying mail server. That site in my book is the worst because they were to persistant.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Lonely by gmack · · Score: 1

      "because every time I get a spam from them I forward to uce@ftc.gov and then I bounce the message back (message cannot be deleviver user not found) Hoping other people will do this and flood the relaying mail server. "

      You mean flood the poor person whoes email address they are spoofing.

      Please make sure your countermeasures get the correct target.

    3. Re:Lonely by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It is. I am sick of these people who set up their servers thinking that they are the technical hotshots. I bet most of them are notified that they are being releayed but because they dont care they just keep there system adding to the problem.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Lonely by gmack · · Score: 1

      The realay server is already likely unuseable from the load the spammer put on it. Spammers like to stuff open relays so full that they are backed up for several days. And the funny thing is the owners may not even realise why. It's sad but I've called them before and got total supprise.

      The problem with bouncing though is that it doesn't affect the relay much and the final resting place of the bounce is likely to be the email account the spammer was spoofing and that person probably did nothing wrong and is not affiliated with either the spammer or the relay.

      It's happened to me so I know what it's like.

  5. Unwanted solicitation by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't use my phone, email, pager, mail, or any personal communications methods to try and sell me something without my prior consent.

    1. Re:Unwanted solicitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right-o, we'll make a note of that

      Thanks for the heads-up, Jim!

      *sheesh*

    2. Re:Unwanted solicitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eyes and ears too....ohh i no longer have the right to send out sound waves in your presence...bite me princess. Maybe you should say do not try and sell me anything at my expense instead of comming off like a total jackass

  6. 46000 by zenintrude · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's times like these that it's quite obvious that people are not being adiquetly represented by our government...


    46000, and then they decide to take action... that's awful.

    --
    - colin
    1. Re:46000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and when the entire UN says "no" we go and do it anyway.

      What a country!

    2. Re:46000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > quite obvious that people are not being adiquetly represented by our government...

      quite agree, lets take all that money being obviously wasted on pointless public education and use it to erradicate spam -- yeah, good point.

    3. Re:46000 by GGardner · · Score: 4, Funny

      The article didn't mention how many minutes it took for the FTC to get these 46k complaints...

    4. Re:46000 by sh4de · · Score: 1

      Mmmm, if it takes tens of thousands of complaints to take action on one spammer...

      /me scribbles some formulae on a napkin

      Given the overall population growth on Earth and the amount of spammers, we'll reach equilibrium on the year 7&J!xO"^Ks f#

      NO CARRIER

    5. Re:46000 by LordYUK · · Score: 1

      While I dont have actual numbers, I would think that there are at the very least a hundred million people in the US (and I could be way low here, which I probably am, but thats not really the point), so if less than 1% of them complained, thats 1,000,000 people, and 46,000 of that is less than 1%, so we're talking less than .5% of the population feels a certain way, and the FTC is doing something.

      I would say the gov't is most certainly doing its job.

      --
      This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    6. Re:46000 by reinard · · Score: 1

      According to the government census there are over 290 million people living in the US. But your statistics are way off. That particular spammer didn't send an email to every person in the US. Secondly, not every spam sent, is received, there are also duplicates. The percentage of people invoved vs those that complained are probably much higher though, but still probably just a few percent, which is a LOT. Why? Because, how many SPAMs do you actually complain to the FTC about? Then you'll see how large this number actually is, even if it's a small percentage.

      --
      Reinard
    7. Re:46000 by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      According to my girl, who just happen to live in the US, there was about 281,421,906 US citizens on April 1st 2000... seems like you should readjust your percentages slightly.

      Still, it is good to see that action is taken!

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    8. Re:46000 by Alan · · Score: 1

      I realize I'm feeding the trolls here, but this brings up the point that a lot of spam does not come from the US, but from the .tw, .hk, etc domains, where (in theory) the FTC has no juristiction. I suppose they could wall off the country and start filtering email not originating in the US (not that that is an easy task of course), but then suddenly the whole idea of the internet stops working.

      In theory this could do good to get the US spammers, but until something is done on a global / mail server level...

    9. Re:46000 by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit Alan:

      In theory this could do good to get the US spammers, but until something is done on a global / mail server level...

      Pity about Bush sinking the International Criminal Court... That might have been useful.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    10. Re:46000 by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      46000, perhaps that's the number of complaints against this one email this spammer sent out. They couldn't charge him with spamming emails sent by others now could they?.

      Perhaps the lesson here is to send all spam to the FTC, and keep sending everything you receive until their mail servers explode.

    11. Re:46000 by SoftCoreHonesty · · Score: 1

      What a load of shit. You don't know what form the 46,000 complaints came in. If they were email complaints they very well could have been from some script kiddie. It takes time to verify the allegations, identify the source of the email, and prepare the proper legal documentation. Did you just want them to run and arrest the guy after one complaint? It amazes what length people will go to to attack the US government.

    12. Re:46000 by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      A court capable of imprisoning any individual in the world if any country complains about it enough?

      Good thing there are no fascist countries left in the world.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    13. Re:46000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose you'd have the FTC take them down after a few dozen people with an axe to grind filed a complaint against them.

    14. Re:46000 by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Yes a lot of spam does come from those domains, but a lot of it also sells products to the U.S. or products in the U.S. Ban imports from those companies, shut down the local ones. Don't stop spam at it's source, stop it at its revenue stream. The spam will dissapear.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  7. Obligatory Bayesian Filtering Plug by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is the obligatory SPAM thread plug for bayesian filtering.

    If you're not already doing it, give it a go in one of its many forms.

    I've been using POPFile for ages and it works a treat.

    1. Re:Obligatory Bayesian Filtering Plug by Suidae · · Score: 1

      I'll vote for it. I'm also using POPFile, and even with the low volume of mail I receive it runs around 95% accuracy.

    2. Re:Obligatory Bayesian Filtering Plug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont wanna filter!!!!! AAAAAHHHHAAAAAA i want to not have the trafic

  8. Maybe... by Madsci · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...if we get 46,000 complaints about Rick Berman, the FTC will take some action!

    --
    Your paranoia is about as subtle as the alien probe in your neck.
    1. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Hillery Rosen or Jack Valenti or Alan Ralsky, or Laura Betterly? Let us nail them all as terrorists and shoot them ar dawn, or sooner!

  9. Obligatory by gpinzone · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that Slashdot can now sue trolls and crapflooders?

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they use deception to attempt to make a profit, yes. But most don't do either, they just got tired of being ignored because they can't write a worth while comment.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but that would mean there would need to be over 46,000 post by tolls...

      oh wait, nervermind.

    3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or trolls even.

    4. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that means the new Goatse Penis and Anus* pills would be illegal to advertise with Slashdot?

      Darn.

      *Pills also come in dolphin strength.

  10. The worst of the worst. by st0rmcold · · Score: 3, Interesting


    All spammers are bad, but they gotta start with the worst in these cases. It's true that a deceptive email subject line bringing you to a porn site is alot worse than someone trying to sell you a pair of shoes (to parents anyway).

    So even if it's not everything, it's a step in the right direction, I am happy :P

    --
    Posting useless rant since 2003.
    1. Re:The worst of the worst. by yintercept · · Score: 1
      All spammers are bad, but they gotta start with the worst in these cases.

      Starting with the worst cases makes it easier to establish a strong precedent in spam cases. If they started with the naive flower shop that sent a mailing to a questionable mailing list...they would get sympathy from the jury for the defendent.

      The same is true with getting 46,000 emails to support a particular case...since it shows massive disgust with spammers.

    2. Re:The worst of the worst. by zbuffered · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree in theory, but disagree in practice. Rather than going after the big fish and then heading on down the line, if you hit them all equally, you'll strike fear in all spammers, not just the big ones.

      Analogy: you've got a few illegal MP3s on your HD, and you see the RIAA cracking down on those with thousands of MP3s... You're not worried, they've got bigger fish to fry. But if they simultaneously go after the little guys too, you'll think, "that could have been me!" and be scared. More so at least than you might otherwise be. So while the big guys might be afraid now, the little guys aren't the least bit worried. Better to scare all of 'em.

      This is, in essence, the FTC saying, "only big spammers are in trouble, the rest are in the clear". We don't want this.

      PS: 1.5 years spam free.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    3. Re:The worst of the worst. by d2003xx · · Score: 1

      Nah. People call it a spamming message because it's "unwanted". If you read it and follow it (what a moron!), then it's not spamming anymore.

    4. Re:The worst of the worst. by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1
      All spammers are bad, but they gotta start with the worst in these cases. It's true that a deceptive email subject line bringing you to a porn site is alot worse than someone trying to sell you a pair of shoes (to parents anyway).

      So even if it's not everything, it's a step in the right direction, I am happy :P
      Unfortunately, what the FTC is cracking down on is the fact that his subject line is misleading, he's showing pron to minors, and his email doesn't contain proper contact information. Until there's legislation enacted that makes the unsolicited nature of spam the primary category whereby they can penalize the sender, it's all bad. Spam is bad because of its unsolicited nature and the theft of resources that it takes to get the spam into your inbox. It's about someone who thinks that my computer is their advertising tool. It's about someone who thinks my ISP's mail servers should take the brunt of the crapload without proper reimbursement for their services.
  11. Brian D. Westby of St. Louis by I'm+A+Librarian · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The FTC accused Brian D. Westby, of suburban St. Louis, of using the e-mail spam operation to drive business to an adult Web site called ``Married But Lonely.''
    Would anyone in St. Louis like to ask this guy what his take on it is?
    1. Re:Brian D. Westby of St. Louis by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Conversely, would anyone like to opt this guy in for some snail spam? :)

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    2. Re:Brian D. Westby of St. Louis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was able to find out that he lives in Saint Charles Missouri. But that was about it. Anyone else want to add on to this? Also I think he is 23 but I'm not positive on that.

      Aside: the city bills itself as "The City That Works For Business"

    3. Re:Brian D. Westby of St. Louis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be useful information.

      whois.networksolutions.com
      Registrant:
      Westby, Brian D. (PORNSEEKER2-DOM)
      1752 S. 5th St.
      SAINT CHARLES
      MO,63303
      US

      Domain Name: PORNSEEKER.NET

      Administrative Contact:
      Westby, Brian (BW11618) bryanwestby@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
      Westby, Brian D.
      1752 S. 5th St.
      SAINT CHARLES , MO 63303
      3149161554
      Technical Contact:
      ValueWeb (HOS237-ORG) hostmaster@VALUEWEB.NET
      ValueWeb
      3250 West Commercial Blvd. #200
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
      US
      954-334-8000 fax: 954-334-8001

      Record expires on 24-Aug-2005.
      Record created on 24-Aug-1999.
      Database last updated on 4-Jan-2003 04:28:55 EST.

      Domain servers in listed order:

      NS1.CALIFORNIA.NET 216.131.95.20
      NS1.OAKWEB.COM 216.131.94.5

    4. Re:Brian D. Westby of St. Louis by phil+reed · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this info will help:

      whois.networksolutions.com
      Registrant:
      Westby, Brian D. (PORNSEEKER2-DOM)
      1752 S. 5th St.
      SAINT CHARLES
      MO,63303
      US

      Domain Name: PORNSEEKER.NET

      Administrative Contact:
      Westby, Brian (BW11618) bryanwestby@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
      Westby, Brian D.
      1752 S. 5th St.
      SAINT CHARLES , MO 63303
      3149161554
      Technical Contact:
      ValueWeb (HOS237-ORG) hostmaster@VALUEWEB.NET
      ValueWeb
      3250 West Commercial Blvd. #200
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
      US
      954-334-8000 fax: 954-334-8001

      Record expires on 24-Aug-2005.
      Record created on 24-Aug-1999.
      Database last updated on 4-Jan-2003 04:28:55 EST.

      Domain servers in listed order:

      NS1.CALIFORNIA.NET 216.131.95.20
      NS1.OAKWEB.COM 216.131.94.5

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    5. Re:Brian D. Westby of St. Louis by grandfenwick · · Score: 1

      The spamhaus.org folks have had a file on him for some time; he's been in the ROKSO (Register of Known Spam Operations) since late last year. Here's his master record.

    6. Re:Brian D. Westby of St. Louis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a post dispatch article.
      O and heres a neat little tool that you can use:
      http://revenue.stlouisco.com/

      Not that I'm implying you should use it to find an address given a real name :)

  12. How did the complaints come in? by Elvisisdead · · Score: 4, Informative

    Possibly uce@ftc.gov? That's the address I've been sending them to.

    --

    "Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
    1. Re:How did the complaints come in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why post a question we all know the answer to? Are you lonely and bored? Or just a little slow?

  13. Keep the government out of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's just what we need -- governments passing laws to outlaw things that the majority of the population doesn't like. I wonder other unpopular things they're looking at banning. At least Ashcroft hasn't labeled spammers as enemy combatants engaged in cyberterrorism and shipped them all off to Guantonomo Bay without a trial -- yet.

    1. Re:Keep the government out of this! by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least Ashcroft hasn't labeled spammers as enemy combatants engaged in cyberterrorism and shipped them all off to Guantonomo Bay without a trial -- yet.

      Not yet is right -- what if those spammers are trying to sell Weapons of Ass Destruction?

      --
      evil adrian
    2. Re:Keep the government out of this! by MojoRilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, that's just what we need -- governments passing laws to outlaw things that the majority of the population doesn't like. I wonder other unpopular things they're looking at banning. At least Ashcroft hasn't labeled spammers as enemy combatants engaged in cyberterrorism and shipped them all off to Guantonomo Bay without a trial -- yet.

      Spoken like a true spammer.

      The government has a long history of regulating how a business advertises. Perhaps you long for the day when a business could completely lie in its advertising, but I don't.

    3. Re:Keep the government out of this! by zdislaw · · Score: 1
      In a ruling due by the end of June, the California Supreme Court had agreed to hear arguements that could place freedom of speech protections on advertising. Nike is claiming that it's lies about working conditions in it's factories was not advertising, per se, but rather "an entry in the marketplace of ideas." If this shit goes by, then how long would it be before spammers started cloaking themselves in constitutioal protection? The case is not entirely black and white (the ACLU is siding with Nike), but seems relavant to this thread.

      Link to story on SFGate.com

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    4. Re:Keep the government out of this! by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      At least Ashcroft hasn't labeled spammers as enemy combatants engaged in cyberterrorism and shipped them all off to Guantonomo Bay without a trial -- yet.

      If only he would... I would pay money to see a Spammers house get hit by several mortar rounds before being stormed by a few dozen troops that have itchy trigger fingers. Now this aproach would definately slow down the spam..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    5. Re:Keep the government out of this! by autophile · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you long for the day when a business could completely lie in its advertising, but I don't.

      I would love to have businesses lay completely in their advertising. CEO's would have to take daily coupon-mailer baths, and CIO's would be forced to watch their company's commercials for two hours each day.

      Oh, lie.

      --Rob

      "The big rat got in the way. When I said, 'Go into the watering-can,' he went too, without in the least understanding -- he just followed the others." --Ratman's Notebooks (1968)

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    6. Re:Keep the government out of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctor: Only Duff fills your "Q zone" with pure beer goodness.
      [the letters G-O-O-D-N-E-S-S tumble down into the "stomach."]
      [the commercial cuts to a shot of the doctor]
      So drink up -- and up -- and up!
      [the cartoon doctor literally takes off, like a rocket]

    7. Re:Keep the government out of this! by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Simple. Object to spam based upon the method of delivery and the lack of consent. The message itself isn't an issue unless it is deceptive and/or illegal, but the act of spamming in and of itself is despicable regardless of what is being advertised.

      The "free speach" argument is a bogus bullshit line pulled out by just about every spammer. The First Amendment does not grant anyone a right to appropriate the private resources of other people as an advertising medium.

      Spammers are criminals. The very act of spamming involves theft of resources. That is why spamming should be outlawed (and spammers put to death), not because they're selling things that we don't want or they're making outlandish and false claims (though just about every spammer does this). It matters not if the spam is for porn, penis enlargement or solicitations for a cancer research fund. Each and every one should be treated with scorn and an effort should be made to have the advertised website blasted off of the Internet.

    8. Re:Keep the government out of this! by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that's just what we need -- governments passing laws to outlaw things that the majority of the population doesn't like.

      First they came for the crackers, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a cracker.

      Then they came for the spammers, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a spammer.

      Then they came for the pump-and-dump scammers on the message boards, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a scammer.

      Hmmm... nah.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    9. Re:Keep the government out of this! by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that's just what we need -- governments passing laws to outlaw things that the majority of the population doesn't like.

      It's called "democracy".

    10. Re:Keep the government out of this! by dyrewolf · · Score: 1
      Not yet is right -- what if those spammers are trying to sell Weapons of Ass Destruction

      Wow, the first /. link to my site. I'm giggly.

  14. Re:too stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do all these news submitters keep on analyzing the stories they are submitting? It really bugs me when people say "too bad" or "microsoft should learn" or whatever in a NEWS ARTICLE... analyzing is what the discussion is for.

  15. The FTC? What a Joke... by Justen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The FTC has become a joke lately. Even Congress thinks so (on the issue of privacy).

    From credit to business mergers to privacy, and, yes, spam, the FTC seems to always screw up something. (While the companies were busy forgetting due diligence, you can bet the FTC was, too...)

    They'll likely compile a list of all the email addresses that were spammed to and make them available to spammers.

    Now that's my government working for me!

    justen

  16. Bogus Unsubscribe addresses... by lionchild · · Score: 4, Funny
    Consumers who selected an option to ``unsubscribe'' and stop receiving these e-mails received an error message, the agency said.

    Y'know, it's funny how while laws might require them to have an address to contact to become unsubscribed from the list, I'm wondering where the enforcement is. Or, where they're required to have a working address?

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:Bogus Unsubscribe addresses... by pitc · · Score: 1

      i don't want to tell the government what my email address is, cuz i don't want spam

      --
      aoeu
    2. Re:Bogus Unsubscribe addresses... by Suidae · · Score: 4, Funny

      It seems that the usual method is to take a master list or lists and generate new lists from it. Any requrest to be taken off 'the mailing list' are honored by removing the names not from the master list, but from the generated list (if it wasn't simply deleted). As a bonus the address identified in the remove request can be marked as 'known live' so that the spammer can make new lists of 'known live' address to sell to other spammers.

      Legislation on remove requests is just stupid, there are too many ways around it. Better legislation would simply require that all penis enlargment messages be flagged as such in the headers so users could filter it, with stiff penalties for violators.

    3. Re:Bogus Unsubscribe addresses... by ergonal · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Better legislation would simply require that all penis enlargment messages be flagged as such in the headers so users could filter it, with stiff penalties for violators.

      Hmm.. indeed.

    4. Re:Bogus Unsubscribe addresses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better legislation would simply require that all penis enlargment messages be flagged as such in the headers so users could filter it, with stiff penalties for violators

      If there only was some way of marking the incoming bits...

      I was originally going to use a quote by Martin from the Simpsons regarding a delicious pun, but thought better of it.

    5. Re:Bogus Unsubscribe addresses... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Most people are learning that you should never click a "remove" link for that very reason, and the time is not yet right to start telling people that it's now OK to click the "remove" link.

      The best thing to do right now is to start with the worst cases, and quickly prosecute them under existing laws for fraud etc., then make it illegal to spam without "ADV:" as the first four characters of the subject line (I think California did this?) or add a header to identify spam, make the new law well-known, and start aggressively prosecuting violators. That doesn't reduce ISP bandwidth, unfortunately*, but it makes filtering much easier, and the easier it is to filter, the fewer end-users will see it, and the less profitable it will become.

      This is in addition to everything else people are doing to combat spam - I use bayesian filtering myself, among other things. ;-)

      * I think it's RFC 822 that says once you've accepted the message envelope (just who the message is from and to, not the subject line), you have to accept the whole message. Once the message has been accepted and the bandwidth has been used, then you can discard it without delivering it to a mailbox if you want.

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

      Simply marking messages as spam doesn't address all the problems associated with spam. Namely bandwidth problems. The emails are still wasting server cycles, network bandwidth, storage space and, yes, even sender's time which could be better spent doing something more productive. Hopefully requiring such a mark would be the kiss of death for spam, though, with the spammers realizing it would be pointless. But that would require that everyone use a spam filter to make sure spamming is pointless. Not sure that the majority of people have filters, or would add them even if they could be perfect.

    7. Re:Bogus Unsubscribe addresses... by lionchild · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't that require legislators to discuss the topic of "penis enlargement" in a public forum? And would that constitute lewd public behavior?

      Of course I simply suggest we add a "spam" flag to message headers, then admins can setup their mailers to simply redirect outgoing mail with a spam-flag to null. Wouldn't that just simplify everyone's life?

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  17. Deceptive Subject Lines?? by ToadSprocket · · Score: 5, Funny
    When consumers opened the e-mail messages, they were immediately subjected to sexually explicit solicitations

    Oh cmon, these people are so picky. What sort of shut-in do you have to be to consider sex with dogs and horses "sexually explicit"?

    Sheesh.

    --


    If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
  18. They did... by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... but the other 54,000 complaints turned out to be spam.

    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
  19. It's All Just Cost Of Doing Business by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've seen info on some spammers with their mansions and high priced lifestyles paid for by spam revenues here on /.

    As long as they are hit with simple fines or only shut down temporarily, or only forced to change their tactics, they'll keep going. They make too much money to stop.

    They'll only stop when sending spam costs more than their rewards. When they are fined enough or sued for enough that they lose their expensive new houses and other trappings of luxery, then they'll think about it.

    In the meantime, don't expect the FTC or anyone from the Bush administration to do anything more than slap the hand of anyone making a good deal of money.

    1. Re:It's All Just Cost Of Doing Business by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well, if my personal feeling of justice should be satisfied, the fine would have to exceed 97 billion. 40,000+ cases of fraud, sounds less unreasonable than the last entity I heard asking for that kind of cash...

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:It's All Just Cost Of Doing Business by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Personally I love the Idea of Declaring them Enemy Combatants engaged in cyberterrorism..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    3. Re:It's All Just Cost Of Doing Business by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Personally I love the Idea of Declaring them Enemy Combatants engaged in cyberterrorism..

      I've gotten spam routed through open relays in .mil space.

      If a .mil server falls over because its disk spool is filled with bounces, I'd certainly hope that qualifies for some hard time. Double if we're at war when it happens.

    4. Re:It's All Just Cost Of Doing Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bush administration"

      His real name is Goldstein. Goldstein and his agents rule the world. It's here. Get used to it.

  20. Who was the other person? by chrysrobyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    after receiving about 46,000 complaints

    Okay, so my bash script was responsible for 32,767 of those, who was the other guy?

  21. maybe this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you outlaw spam, only criminals will have spam. They can take my spam from me when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

    1. Re:maybe this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the proper phrase is "if they outlaw this thing, only outlaws will have it" - generally used for guns.

    2. Re:maybe this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eat too much of it, and you have a self-fullfilling prophecy. Yum, cholesterol!

  22. Democracy at work by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    Over 50% of the people in the United States do not unwanted solicitation to private communication. Yet the laws don't change to reflect the people's desires. Go democracy.

    1. Re:Democracy at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually its democracy at it's finest.

      those 50% havent done anything besides answer a poll that they don't want those solicitations.

      they have not yet let their reps know this fact.

      Reps take money from special interest groups because they know they can. if they knew they would not be re-elected because they did not support xyz leglislation, it doesnt matter how much money they have.

      so basically democracy depends on people NOT BEING LAZY.

      so if people refuse to make their desires heard by the folks that need to hear them, those people get what they deserve.

      i've written my congress critters, have you?

      my opin goes as follows: if you didnt vote INTELLIGENTLY, let your rep know what you want, and take action when they do otherwise, your opinion does not count, and should be appropriately ignored

    2. Re:Democracy at work by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Kinda like "Goooo, banana!"

    3. Re:Democracy at work by jo42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Over 50% of the people in the United States do not [...]want[...]

      Sorta like the way G.W. won the election...

    4. Re:Democracy at work by SoftCoreHonesty · · Score: 1

      Except of course for the new do not call list and the existing unsolicited fax law. Give it time. Some states already have anti-spam laws and eventually I think you will see a nationwide one. Now enforcement is a whole other issue.

  23. Response time by overshoot · · Score: 1
    Too bad it took 46000 complaints to prompt some action

    Cut them some slack, OK? Even Government bureaucrats have to use the can now and then.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Response time by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Which is about how long it takes to get 46000 spam messages...

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  24. Re:too stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got first post, because you didn't take the time to use the shift key.

  25. Re:Fox News by rcathcart · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    and he said: Praise be to O'Reilly

  26. Reducing Network Traffic? by argmanah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it's going to take over 40k in e-mails per spammer to get the FTC to take action, think how much in terms of time and resources it's going to cost us just to report these guys. It's almost as if the FTC is some sort of reverse spammer, draining network resources by forcing us to spam them to get them to do something about spamming... Somewhat ironic if nothing else.

    --
    Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
    1. Re:Reducing Network Traffic? by fermion · · Score: 1
      This is the situation in most cases of inefficiency. If we limit ourselves to the original drain, i.e. the original spam, things may not be so bad. However, when one adds the hardware and software used to filter the spam, the forwarding of complaints to the offending company, the hosting company, the spammers, and the government, the true scale of the problem is apparent.

      As an analogy we can look at the power consumption of a computer. At first the power needed for an inefficient processor and associated hardware does not seem so bad. However, when one factors in the fans that are needed to cool the components, and the air conditioner that is needed to cool the room, the bill starts stacking up.

      In both cases the issue is not to blame secondary factors, but to fix the root problem.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  27. 46,000 complaints by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny
    Wow. That's even less responsive than slashdot!


    Hey Malda, why didn't you convert your patent encumbered gifs to png?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:46,000 complaints by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      By the time he switches to PNG, the LZW patent will have expired!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:46,000 complaints by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      yeah, but slashdot could use svg icons and xhtml.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  28. Volunteer Grammar Nazi says by 87C751 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    s/heretofore/hereinafter/

    --
    Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  29. Forward your spam to the FTC by travdaddy · · Score: 5, Informative

    A slashdot article FTC Encourages Consumers to Forward Them Spam was posted on September 7, 2002 stating that the FTC wanted people to forward them spam at uce@ftc.gov.

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    1. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by pitc · · Score: 1

      that the FTC wanted people to forward them spam at uce@ftc.gov.
      the ftc must not be getting enough spam, so they want me to send them mine?? i wish spammers would save me the trouble and just send it directly to them!

      --
      aoeu
    2. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by Spoing · · Score: 1
      I'm already submitting mine to SpamCop.

      Does the FTC want my archive? I'll send the last few months worth if it is at all appreciated.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    3. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      Given the indiscriminate fashion in which spam is slung around the internet, I'm sure many spammers are already hitting FTC email addresses. In fact, the best thing the FTC could possibly do is set up a few "dummy" hotmail and/or Yahoo accounts just to catch spam.

    4. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by tignom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read about this a while ago and uce@ftc.gov became my "public" email address. Whenever a website demands an email address and I know it's gonna end up on a spam list, I just let them send it directly to the ftc. At least they'll (maybe) give it the attention it deserves instead of just getting annoyed.

      Side note - I had to install Real Player on my work machine the other day (don't ask), and that address was already on their mailing list. So were all my backup addresses: abuse@site, webmaster@site, postmaster@site, root@site, abuse@aol.com, abuse@hotmail.com. Site is whatever site I'm visiting.

    5. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spamcop is not the FTC so... yeah. I'd bet forwarding it to the FTC would be a good idea.

    6. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by Maserati · · Score: 1

      I forward to both spamcop and the FTC using a group alias. It adds no time to the reporting. Spamcop (maybe) gets the spammer shut down, then the FTC comes along later and uses them. Works great !

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    7. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by thecoolestguy · · Score: 1

      Then aren't you the one committing a crime because you're identifying yourself as someone you're not?

      I mean, c'mon. You have to draw the line somehwere. If you need information from a website that needs your email address - give them an address you created specifically to receive these types of things or go to another website.

      It's like, if you signed up for overstock.com - you automatically get "opted-in" and therefore have an on-going contract with that company. They're entitled to send you whatever they want until you specifically ask them to not receive anything. If they sell your address to someone else for money, then the "opt-in" contract passes to that new company. (Based on the results of a utah spam case).

      I don't see how you can complain. If you don't like it - don't use the site in question. I think that's why there's a huge gray area dealing with spam and why it's so hard to create legislation. What consitutes criminaly activity versus companies legally trying to use the internet as a medium to market themselves?

      --
      A man, regardless or age, is old when regrets of the past replace hopes of the future.
    8. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by leerpm · · Score: 1

      You should have tried abuse@real.com

    9. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that he is not doing it with criminal intent. As opposed to spammers such as you who ARE doing it with criminal intent.

    10. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by autocracy · · Score: 1

      Stupid argument that holds water like Swiss Cheese. 'nuf said.

      --
      SIG: HUP
  30. Working addresses by overshoot · · Score: 1

    Well, they once worked. Of course, after the first few thousand complaints, even Hotmail and Yahoo pull the plug. Besides, they were over quota (it's not like anyone was actually reading them, after all.)

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Working addresses by lionchild · · Score: 1

      Heck, if they were required to actually read the email generated from that, then they wouldn't have time to do further spammage for a few months!

      And you've always just got to wonder about that remove address that reads: asdfasdf (at) hotmail.com.

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  31. Ahh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ah, I guess the scare halted all the porn emails I've been getting on hotmail.

  32. Re:too stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You got first post because you didn't even RTFA.

    Using a practice called ``spoofing,'' the spam also contained false information about who sent the e-mail, the FTC said. Responses to the spam flooded the e-mail accounts of people uninvolved with the operation.

  33. If we spam the FTC... by seangw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We all just need to change our corporate spam filters, to forward all unwanted spam to the FTC. I'm sure that will get the ball moving...

    1. Re:If we spam the FTC... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Umm.. Thats not such a good idea either :) After all for mentioning something like that you could be Considered a terrorist under the Homeland security Act.. After alll That would be a DDOS attack on the FTC's email servers :) Mind you it would be interesting to see what size of pipe and how large a server cluster they would need to Recive all the spam that never sees inboxes due to Filters :) That would be Such a interesting statistic... 1 out of every Million emails actually makes it to the inbox.. then 1 out of every Million of those actually gets opened.. then 1 out of every million of those generates a Positive responce to the spammer. It would be stagering to see how much money was spent so that 1 person could purchase something from a spam mail.. The cost I bet ya would be well hard to speculate.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  34. bogus but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...bogus (but real) from/reply to addresses...

    I'm a bit confused about how these addresses were both "bogus (but real)?" Would someone like to clarify the author's intent with this comment?

    Thanks.

    1. Re:bogus but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were other peoples addresses which existed.

    2. Re:bogus but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real as in valid, but bogus as in not theirs. Kinda like sending stuff from billg@microsoft.com or billgates@microsoft.com or williamgates@microsoft.com when that is not your email address.

    3. Re:bogus but... by bpfinn · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm a bit confused about how these addresses were both "bogus (but real)?" Would someone like to clarify the author's intent with this comment?

      I think that the author means that the "From" address was a real, working email address. It just didn't happen to belong to the spammer. I believe this is called getting "Joe-Jobbed".

    4. Re:bogus but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of "spammers.real.email@isp.com" they use "innocent.partys.real.email@another_isp.com"

    5. Re:bogus but... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      It's only actually a 'joe-job' if it is an intentional attempt to direct misguided wrath at the target.
      Joe-jobbery includes deliberately putting a person's e-mail address in the 'from' header so that they will be inundated with bounces and complaints as well as spamming out 'advertisements' for a website in an attempt to make that particular website look bad.

      I had someone joe-job me recently (he did it to people who had posted in a particular newsgroup). That was a deliberate act, and if I ever find him, there's going to be a funny story about the spammer, a baseball bat, a container of kerosine and a match.

  35. wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who carries a pager now adays let alone spams them?

  36. Please God by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Please God let it be those fuckers carpet bombing the planet with the 'Click Here to meet Married Women in your town' spam. Their return address and Subject lines morph into something different every message, the entire message is HTML encoded to break up every character of every word (makes it a bitch to filter,) and they are fire-hosing down every email address I have so I don't think it was me 'opting-in' to anything because I wouldn't have opted in every damn email address I have.

    If it is this Brian D Westby fellow doing this, I say douse him in gasoline and light his ass on fire.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    1. Re:Please God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filter out HTML email, then? :)

      Or at least email with excessive HTML...

      Hell, just count if the number of s pass a certian % of the email...

  37. why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is this funny?

  38. I AGREE WITH THIS POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    parent poster is obviously a moron...I couldnt have done a better job of pointing it out

  39. Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by trentfoley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I run a small mail server with a dozen or so accounts. I have been using spamassassin for quite a while and it has been awesome.

    However, there have been a slew of recent spams that have made it through. The subject lines are simple things such as "Hello". This is also the same subject line of ALL of my mother's emails; after all, that's how she answers the phone. The content is nothing more than an image tag pointing to a screenshot of the ad. Spamassassin doesn't complain since there is not enough wrong with the email - they usually score around 1 or 2 (which is way too low to set a threshold, 5 is reasonable). I could alter the scoring rules, but that would create way too many false positives since many emails are just links to political cartoons and the like.

    I don't think bayesian filtering would help the problem.

    I keep forwarding them to uce@ftc.gov. Maybe I'll submit the 46,000th entry and win a prize!

    1. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by Mr+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bayesian WOULD help you.

      The Bayes filter would decide that since it had a short subject line, it wasn't coming from someone you know (names on whitelist are always non-spam), and it contains IMG SRC but no other POSITIVE hits, it's would score VERY likely spam on a properly trained filter.

      The only problem you may have is if your mother regularly sends you pictures of her dog with a subject line like Here.

      HTML email by itself scores very high on probability for spam, because very few people besides spammers use it. Those people are generally vetted by their other content.

    2. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Whitehat your Mom's email address, block all others with the "hello"

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    3. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by trentfoley · · Score: 1

      A few updates ago, I noticed that bayesian features were added to spamassassin. Either I'm missing something (very likely), or this is a not-so-useful feature. Since spamassassin, not me, decides what is spam, the resulting analysis should closely mirror the scoring system's analysis.

      Time to go read up on spamassassin. But, I hope there is a way to set up an email account (like uce@domain.com) to which email could be forwarded so spamassassin could know what I (and my users) think is spam.

      Somedays, it seems like all I do is look stuff up. Oh well, it keeps my aged, abused brain cells from becoming atrophied.

    4. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      heh, ever seen the one that has a faked message from you? like
      "hey dude, here's that url you wanted
      http://whatever.porn.site

      good, huh?

      >you said:
      >hey man, where can I get those photos?"
      -yourname

      " ... those slip through on occasion.
      Or, spam that has nothing but a URL. That's it. Just a URL.
      Damn spammers.

    5. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by timerider · · Score: 1
      However, there have been a slew of recent spams that have made it through.

      I run spamassassin as well. Whenever I start getting false negatives, I check for an updated spamassassin, and alas! no more false negatives after the update...

      bye, [L]

    6. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by trentfoley · · Score: 1
      I run spamassassin as well. Whenever I start getting false negatives, I check for an updated spamassassin

      I'm running 2.51 and the most recent is 2.53. Looking back through my email, I see that I got the update notification email, but skipped installing it for some unremembered reason. I'll re-run the offending emails through the 2.53 version, but I'll be suprised if there is any significant difference in scoring.

      Thanks for the heads-up, though. Even if it doesn't matter, I still should have checked to make sure I was running the most current version.

    7. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure on Spamassassin, I don't use it. I'd be a little scared of any bayesian filter that doesn't allow 'training'.

    8. Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is the new Bad Thing going around. Spammers have figured out that there are some really smart filters out there. I have no experience with Spamassassin. I've been using Spammunition.

      Lately, the image based spams are coming through. I have noticed one thing about them, they have absolutly no text, besides the subject. Usually, when someone sends you a funny picture, they have a comment, or even the text from the previous forwarded email (layers and layers of greater than symbols (>)). Spammunition not only uses "bad" words to block spam, it uses "good" words to keep from blocking non-spam. So the very presence of a word can prevent the email from being filtered. I'd say only about 10% of the image only spam emails are getting through by Spammunition because of this.

      Maybe in the future, filters will incorporate OCR for emails like this. Then the spammers will make sure the text in the images confuse the OCR software. Or, they'll break the image into tiny pieces.

      What a race. How fun.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  40. I'm going to start forwarding all my spam to Wash. by Electric+Eye · · Score: 1

    Seriously. It's about time these lowlife scumbags do something about the other lowlife scumbags flooding the net with porn. I have over 150 filters on my mail server now, and I JUST started seeing real results. (I'm not going to say what I did) Anyone in the "know" knows that these unsubscribe pages are either fake (enter *@* and see what happens) or used to confirm good addresses. The fucked up thing is that who knows what legit mail is being lost due to the filters we're forced to use.

    I hope all spammers' souls live an deternity in a horrible place. I have more admiration for pimps and bag ladies than I do these people.

    So, my new script will be to forward this crap to every House member and Senator.

  41. actual ftc site by ih8apple · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the actual FTC announcement...

  42. Re:I soooo want to kill the fucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say you were the mongoloid if you can't figure out how to block a single spammer. Moron.

  43. Star Trek spam by Brown+Eggs · · Score: 1

    I agree - when I see Enterprise in the subject line of the TV Guide, I immediately go it it, expecting that I will be viewing a show about Star Trek. When I do open it, it is just porn (with pointed ears).

    1. Re:Star Trek spam by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      "it is just porn (with pointed ears)"

      You say that like there's something WRONG with that...

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
  44. Also get free POP3 Hotmail access for spam free HM by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Take a look at http://www.boolean.ca/hotpop/ "HotPop". It is a proxy that gives you POP3 access to your Hotmail account. So you can have: Outlook (connects to) POPFile (connects to) HotPop

    Result? In Outlook, you get all your POP3 accounts and Hotmail, delivered into one inbox with no spam. Never need to manually check Hotmail etc. And with a hotsync, it all goes into my Palm Tungsten T. Sweet. And for the un-1337, POPFile is easy to setup and use on Wind0z3 b0x3n :)

    One more thing... DISABLE ANTIVIRUS E-MAIL SCANNING before you install POPFile. Don't re-ename the scanning software until after everything is talking to everything else perfectly.

  45. For the love of..... by DownTheLongRoad · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Too bad it took 46000 complaints to prompt some action, but at least some action is being taken.
    Is it possibly for stories to be posted without someone's cynical or uninformed opinion? Yes, I realize this is Slashdot but it is beyond annoying at this point. How does the submitter know what the relevance of the number of complaints is? Maybe the FTC has some minimum number of people that must complain before they take action and many of the complaints were from the same person.

    1. Re:For the love of..... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      I think its more because of the low number than anything else... I would like to see what method these complaints were made with to get a responce. It is extreamly likely if it only takes 46,000 to get the FTC to do something ALOT more people will before using these methods. after all spam effects 95% of the internet population and to get 46,000 to fill out a complaint about spam would be to easy

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    2. Re:For the love of..... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they received 46,000 complaints in a matter of days, and it took them that long to prepare their case? uce@ftc.gov doesn't receive a small amount of complaints.

      But I didn't read the article either. :-)

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

      Is it possibly for comments to be posted without someone's cynical or uninformed opinion?

  46. The reason... by mixy1plik · · Score: 0

    ...why spammers continue making money is that people continue to click through to their sites. People still are sending their credit card numbers via non-SSL enabled pages to them. People still seem to believe their manhood/member can be 3"-6" longer in mere weeks.

    There have been studies in the Boston area, where I live, that demonstrates a few simple utopian rules that would significantly reduce traffic in the area- one of them being that if people allow some space between themselves and the car in front of them, much of the traffic congestion could be avioded. On the spam issue, if people stopped falling for the ads, got a little educated, and didn't allow themselves to be so easily deceived, then the problem would be significantly reduced and only the most illegal of spamming would make itself obvious.

  47. Re:The FTC? What a Joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Au contraire..

    FTC privacy regulations are being accused of being too hard to follow for website operators! Aren't Slashfolk for _more_ privacy?

    FTC apparently is doing a pretty good job overall..

    Excerpts from recent Wall Street Journal article:
    (April 4th 2003 by John Wilke)
    "Devout Reaganite Becomes
    An Unlikely Enforcer at FTC"
    "Indeed, of the few federal regulatory agencies that really matter, his stands out because it's functioning vigorously: The Federal Communications Commission is nearly paralyzed, with board members in open revolt against the chairman; Harvey Pitt went down in flames at the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the Justice Department antitrust chief, Charles James, resigned amid criticism that he was a reluctant enforcer who caved on the Microsoft Corp. case.

    Mr. Muris, unexpectedly, has become an aggressive enforcer. He's filed lawsuits against drug makers for cutting cozy deals with rivals and moved to promote competition where it is lacking in the health-care business, by investigating hospital mergers and alleged price fixing by doctors' groups. He has clipped attorneys' fees in class-action cases and told lawyers they aren't needed to close real-estate transactions. He has scolded funeral directors for banning online casket sales and targeted state rules used to restrict the sale of wine on the Internet. He has forced Microsoft to drop plans to harvest consumer data from its software, and in antitrust -- despite predictions that he'd be a soft touch for business -- he has challenged mergers in markets from ice cream to pickles.

    Mr. Muris's most visible public legacy may be a federal "do not call" system to protect Americans from telemarketers, which he pushed through despite resistance from his own party in Congress. The system could be in operation as soon as this summer, allowing consumers an easy way to shield themselves from dinnertime calls from telemarketers." ...
    "Most votes on the agency's five-member board are now unanimous. "We're the only game in town right now, where government is actually looking out for consumers," says Mozelle Thompson, a Democratic commissioner and early Muris critic who is now an ally."

    On dealing with spam:
    "Mr. Muris dropped that tack and instead boosted law-enforcement resources by 50%, and began prosecuting more identity-theft and fraud cases. He targeted unwanted e-mail by filing charges against hundreds of deceptive spammers. And he delighted in showing visitors "the refrigerator," a large data-storage unit deep in the FTC's granite headquarters where the nastiest forms of spam are stored and studied by FTC sleuths.

    Consumer advocates say the FTC hasn't gone far enough to stem the rising tide of junk e-mail. "We're disappointed they haven't done more," said James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, a Ralph Nader-affiliated nonprofit. He specifically criticizes Mr. Muris's decision not to seek new laws to restrict spammers."

    WOAH.. the FTC commissioner wants to use existing laws instead of passing new fun filled blanket laws?

  48. I found someone who actually reads spam by select+*+from · · Score: 5, Funny

    This happened about 2 weeks ago.

    Our internal email in our office scans incoming and outgoing mail for viruses, spam, etc. Some spam slips through. In this case it was one of the numerous increase penile length spams.

    When an email that is sent out and is blocked for some reason we are automatically notified. In this case someone forwarded the penile lotion lengther spam back to his home account so presumably he could read it later at home and perhaps try the product. This time it actually caught the spam going out when he tried forwarding it.

    This "someone" was the president of our company. So far he hasn't asked us why the email he forwarded didn't go through. Of course we'll know if he eventually got it to go through when he starts wearing a loin cloth to work.

  49. It's funny that by Bush_man10 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some people consider this to be a nice surpise. "Oh look! It's porn and here I thought it was something about my resume". Then their spirits are lifted for a short while!

    Back in the land of reality this spammer should burn in hell :)

    --
    "I believe in everything in moderation. Including moderation." -Dean DeLeo, Stone Temple Pilots
  50. Unlikely by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

    Unless someone's prison hotmail account got so spam-bloated that they missed some good pr0n attachments a buddy on the outside sent them, I doubt anyone in prison really cares about spamming. They'd probably be like, "You got sent to prison for throwing meat at people? wtf".

    1. Re:Unlikely by e2d2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I doubt anyone in prison really cares about spamming. They'd probably be like, "You got sent to prison for throwing meat at people? wtf".

      I think it would be more like this: "I don't give a flying fuck what you're in here for.. give me your Cocktail FRUIT!

    2. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's going to be more along the lines of, ok, you're the new chef, boy... time to toss my salad!

  51. Only 46,000?! by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 2, Funny

    It only takes that many complaints for the FTC to do something about a Spammer? Geeze... Thats not alot.. Should be Soo easy to wipe out the big Spam kings if it only takes 46,000 complaints to the FTC... considering there are Willions of people that it pisses off enough to do something about it... Not many know what to do about it... I Guess the answer is Complain to the FTC!

    --
    Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    1. Re:Only 46,000?! by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      Really, aren't there at least 46,000 people on /. alone? Or more like 250,000?

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  52. May slashdot have mercy on his soul... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    whois.networksolutions.com
    Registrant:
    Westby, Brian D. (PORNSEEKER2-DOM)
    1752 S. 5th St.
    SAINT CHARLES
    MO,63303
    US

    Domain Name: PORNSEEKER.NET

    Administrative Contact:
    Westby, Brian (BW11618) bryanwestby@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
    Westby, Brian D.
    1752 S. 5th St.
    SAINT CHARLES , MO 63303
    3149161554
    Technical Contact:
    ValueWeb (HOS237-ORG) hostmaster@VALUEWEB.NET
    ValueWeb
    3250 West Commercial Blvd. #200
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
    US
    954-334-8000 fax: 954-334-8001

    Record expires on 24-Aug-2005.
    Record created on 24-Aug-1999.
    Database last updated on 4-Jan-2003 04:28:55 EST.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS1.CALIFORNIA.NET 216.131.95.20
    NS1.OAKWEB.COM 216.131.94.5

    1. Re:May slashdot have mercy on his soul... by Electric+Eye · · Score: 1

      Bless you, my brother. I will include his email in random posting in alt.binaries.erotica groups from now on.

    2. Re:May slashdot have mercy on his soul... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that everyone reading this will take the time so gin Brian up for at least one catalog.

      "catalog request name address zip" in your favorite search engine will get you plenty to choose from.

    3. Re:May slashdot have mercy on his soul... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope he enjoys the special offers that 'Freebie Find' will be despatching to him soon :)

  53. Excellent by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's this enormous flood washing over us, and we see a few tiny people down there, holding up their hands trying to stop the massive amounts of water drowning the village.
    Yeah, that'll work.

  54. As much as spammer's suck by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hardly think this is the kind of crime we should be sending people to jail over. I'm of the opinion that jail is something that should be reserved for violent offenders; and maybe repeat non-violent offenders. For the same reason I think it's absurd to send a kid to jail for downloading mp3s, I don't think this guy belongs in jail.

    On the other hand, I'd be more than happy to see him fined up the wazoo and opened up to lawsuits from victims.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:As much as spammer's suck by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      I'm of the opinion that jail is something that should be reserved for violent offenders; and maybe repeat non-violent offenders
      Is 46000 spams (of which 41100 are archived here) not enough repeat offence for you?
      --
      Donate free food here
    2. Re:As much as spammer's suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, someone sending spam porn to someone's work e-mail addy w/ a false subject line, and them being fired because someone catches them "looking at porn" isn't a big deal at all, it doesn't hurt anyone in any way. . .

      Maybe just a slap on the wrist is too harsh for these spammers?

      This offense, as with any (imho) should be delt with extremely harshly, and each occurance, regardless of the outcome should be delt with as if it achieved the aforementioned results.

    3. Re:As much as spammer's suck by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, someone sending spam porn to someone's work e-mail addy w/ a false subject line, and them being fired because someone catches them "looking at porn" isn't a big deal at all, it doesn't hurt anyone in any way. . .
      Not to defend spammers, but...

      I think that if something like that really happens, the spammer is not responsible for you getting fired. The manager who fired you is responsible. His crime is stupidity. The company's profits will suffer as a result of keeping the stupid person around, who fires people for no reason. Justice is done.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:As much as spammer's suck by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      By repeat offense, I mean convicted of a crime once, being punished for said crime, and then committing the crime again. If I rob two banks and get caught it's not the same as robbing one bank, getting caught, and imediatedly robbing another bank. In the latter case, I have been given a chance by society to reform and have shown that I likely cannot.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    5. Re:As much as spammer's suck by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      In the latter case, I have been given a chance by society to reform and have shown that I likely cannot.
      Society has complained already at least 46000 times in this case. As such; I think that he got plenty of chances to reform if he wanted to (he can't claim ignorance) and that he has shown he cannot without harsher measures.
      --
      Donate free food here
    6. Re:As much as spammer's suck by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Society hasn't offically complained until he's been tried in court, nor has he had an opportunity to pay his debt to society until the courts have punished him. Going back to the bank analogy, I'm sure the first robbery was reported. The robber certainly can't claim ignorance. But the robber still has no prior criminal convictions. Upon being caught and tried for the first time in a court of law, society still has to treat him as though he has no criminal record prior to this trial, because he doesn't. His record as a convicted criminal starts upon his first conviction, not when his crime is reported.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    7. Re:As much as spammer's suck by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      Society hasn't offically complained until he's been tried in court,
      I think you've got that backwards. Trying someone in court is imo the last step, when all other forms of (official or not) complaining have failed. It's not the start or a first step of complaints by society, it's the last one. In strict law enforcement terms you may be entirely correct, but society is a lot broader than that.
      nor has he had an opportunity to pay his debt to society until the courts have punished him.
      Locking up someone is something you do to protect society from an individual (and you hope that during the time he's locked up, he'll have time to think about what he did and see why it was wrong), not to make him pay for what he did. Nobody even asked him to make up for what he did, all that people wanted was for him to stop spamming.
      Going back to the bank analogy, I'm sure the first robbery was reported. The robber certainly can't claim ignorance.
      The spammer wasn't tried after his first spamming run, but after almost a year of continuous spamming and getting booted from a dozen isp's.
      --
      Donate free food here
  55. The FTC now says they can regulate spam by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The FTC's legal position is significant. Read the legal documents in the case. First, the FTC says they have the legislative authority to regulate spam, because they have the authority to regulate false or misleading advertising. Second, they don't draw a distinction between the spammer and the business being advertised:
    • Because the "Married But Lonely" spam forges the identity of the sender, it is unclear whether Westby sends the spam himself or whether he employs someone else to send it. Even if he does hire someone to send the spam, he is still liable for these practices. Westby is liable for deceptive or unfair practices he engages in himself or for those of his employees or agents who are acting on his behalf. Under the FTC Act, a principal is liable for misrepresentations made by agents with actual or apparent authority to make such representations, regardless of any unsuccessful efforts by the principal to prevent such misrepresentations.
    • See Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. FTC, 785 F.2d 1431, 1438-39 (9th Cir. 1986); FTC v. Skybiz.com, Inc., 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 31, 2001); FTC v. Five-Star Auto Club, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 502, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). It is inappropriate for a principal to "`reap the fruits from their [agents'] acts and doings without incurring such liabilities as attach thereto."' Skybiz.com, 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (quoting Goodman v. FTC, 244 F.2d 584, 591-92 (9th Cir. 1957)).
    Note what the FTC is saying. They don't even have to prove that the business being advertised by spam paid the spammer. If someone benefitted from the spam, the beneficiary is liable.

    If a court agrees, as is likely, you don't sue spammers any more. You go after the deep pocket - the business being advertised. This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses to a screeching halt.

    1. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Two comments.
      First, "This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses..." is a nonsensical statement. Any business that deliberately uses spamming, either from their own computers of from a 'contracted ethikul bizzniss' is not a 'legitimate company'.

      Second, this is potentially dangerous, as it could possibly open up business to liability when someone spams using their name in a deliberate attempt to defame the company (called a 'joe-job'). This has happened before, and I don't like the idea of the FTC holding companies responsible simply because some criminal (all spammers are criminals) decided to spam out the company's name. Of course, you would need to find some means to determine which businesses are really victims and which are really lying about being victims. Remember, spammers are liars, so companies who contract spam can be counted on to lie about it afterwards -- especially if there are financial consequences to their actions.

    2. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      For some reason my previous comment was posted as "Anonymous Coward", but it wasn't meant to be. Sorry.
      Anyway, gist of it is: legitimate companies don't send spam, so "legitimate companies who use spamming" is a nonsensical term and I commented on the potential danger of a legitimate company being defamed by a spammer and then being investigated by the FTC as a result.

    3. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it is technically easy to "joe-job" someone, but the court will be able to distinguish a legitimate business from fly-by-night spam businesses, even if the FTC doesn't.

      Anyone involved in such activity should be pretty secure in his leet internet skills, as he is committing too many Federal crimes to list. Even if it is just a garage spammer hitting a competing trailerpark spammer.

      If the business is selling spurious product (penis lengtheners, instant weightloss, porn) or scamming info (mortgage w/o license, fake contests) then the probability it has been spamming is high. These are not the types of businesses that take out yellow page ads. It will not take a long look at criminal, business and ISP records to determine whether a business is spamming or not. (For instance, if the spamvertised site was registered yesterday with fake contact information.)

      Furthermore, the threat of federal conspiracy indictment will bring out any third-party spammer so stupid enough to accept a joe-job contract, and crush him along with the joe-jobber.

    4. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by Steve+B · · Score: 1

      An innocent legitimate business is going to have books that will demonstrate that, no, they did not pay a chickenboner to spew spam on their behalf. A guilty business will need to cook the books to conceal payment to the spammer -- but the government has lots of experience in detecting books that have been cooked to conceal some crime or other.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    5. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by odin53 · · Score: 1

      Second, this is potentially dangerous, as it could possibly open up business to liability when someone spams using their name in a deliberate attempt to defame the company (called a 'joe-job'). This has happened before, and I don't like the idea of the FTC holding companies responsible simply because some criminal (all spammers are criminals) decided to spam out the company's name. Of course, you would need to find some means to determine which businesses are really victims and which are really lying about being victims. Remember, spammers are liars, so companies who contract spam can be counted on to lie about it afterwards -- especially if there are financial consequences to their actions.

      Just judging from the quote from the case, it shouldn't open businesses up to liability in the way you say. The spammer must be an "agent with actual or apparent authority." People who are trying to "defame" a company by spamming on its behalf certainly won't be "agents" in the legal sense (agency law is a well-developed area of law, and it is what the court was referring to), and it would be mostly likely trivial to prove that. Sure, the spammer could say "yes, I was their agent," but how much credible proof could he possibly show?

    6. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      Note what the FTC is saying. They don't even have to prove that the business being advertised by spam paid the spammer. If someone benefitted from the spam, the beneficiary is liable...

      This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses to a screeching halt


      It could also see a lot of bonafide and ethical businesses brought to their knees thanks to Joe-jobs launched by less ethical competitors.

    7. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by Animats · · Score: 1
      Just judging from the quote from the case, it shouldn't open businesses up to liability in the way you say. The spammer must be an "agent with actual or apparent authority."

      Right. What it does do is hold companies responsible for the actions of their "affiliates". The law the FTC cites is aimed at companies that run scams through "independent distributors", claiming to avoid responsibility. This says the FTC now classifies spamming as a new variation on that old scam.

      The FTC writes this on how they define "unfairness",

      • The present understanding of the unfairness standard is the result of an evolutionary process. The statute was deliberately framed in general terms since Congress recognized the impossibility of drafting a complete list of unfair trade practices that would not quickly become outdated or leave loopholes for easy evasion. The task of identifying unfair trade practices was therefore assigned to the Commission, subject to judicial review, in the expectation that the underlying criteria would evolve and develop over time. As the Supreme Court observed as early as 1931, the ban on unfairness "belongs to that class of phrases which do not admit of precise definition, but the meaning and application of which must be arrived at by what this court elsewhere has called 'the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.'"

      That's exactly the process this case starts. The FTC has now said that some spam-related acts are illegally unfair. Unless a court disagrees, that effectively becomes law. A higher court or Congress can overrule them, of course, but unless and until that happens, the FTC has effectively defined the new rules.

    8. Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam by spacefrog · · Score: 1

      This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses to a screeching halt.

      Oh, yes, and those penis enlargements, nigerian 419 scams and "prescription drugs without a prescription" businesses are so legitimate to begin with!

  56. How about auotmating the process? by Wizri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Run all incoming mail through Spam Assassin and forward any message that are found spam to the FTC with the subject changed to "Complaint about spammer info and proof within". Lets say that only 0.01% of the population does it and lets assume that there are 7*10^6 net users that each recive 10 spams/days. So that's 7*10^4 e-mails to the FTC a day, every day.

    I wonder how many orders to cease operations will this cause

    --

    Lets make spam the new game of Russian Rollete.

  57. Enlargment, Enhancement, Enforcement by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses to a screeching halt."

    Perhaps... But 90% of the shit these guys peddle is hardly legitimate.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Enlargment, Enhancement, Enforcement by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps... But 90% of the shit these guys peddle is hardly legitimate.

      One step at a time.

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

    With this cost effective ... err..never mind. I just read your message. So sorry, I won't spam you anymore.

    Yeah, whatever. :)

  59. Mr Westby's Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  60. New SPAMmer to abuse by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

    Feel free to make this guys life hell. I've received over 100 of his mortgage offers in the past two weeks and asking to be removed from his mailing list has done no good.

    Here is the raw output for domain n0hastlem0rtgage.com:

    Organization:
    none
    Mike Stone
    12345 Stone rd
    Stoneville, CA 92504
    US
    Phone: 916.123.4567
    Email: vialead@yahoo.com

    Amazingly enough, his yahoo account has already been terminated.

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    1. Re:New SPAMmer to abuse by dacarr · · Score: 1
      Sorry, Oliver, the Postal Service denies the existance of a Stoneville CA at that zip code.

      In fact, searching zip code 92504 for cities using this tool they provide reveals the following data for zip 92504:

      92504 is associated with the following Cities/Towns:

      RIVERSIDE CA ACCEPTABLE (DEFAULT) STANDARD
      CASA BLANCA CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
      HARDMAN CENTER CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
      WOODCREST CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD

      Furthermore, 916 area code is for the Sacramento area - about 8 hours north of Riverside CA, which is about 1 hour east of Los Angeles and uses A/C 909.

      QED, whois info is not always the most reliable. Next, please.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    2. Re:New SPAMmer to abuse by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Thats another thing that really pisses me off... Not only do they send you the email once.. but its common for me to see the same damn piece of spam 3 or 4 times a day in my spam folder.. Like Oh geeze this must be important if they are sending it more than just once..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    3. Re:New SPAMmer to abuse by mark_space2001 · · Score: 1
      Sorry to bust your bubble, but there doesn't seem to ba any Stoneville, CA at all. 916 is my area code, and there's certainly no such place around here.

      Furthermore, Mike Stone, 12345 Stone Road, Stoneville, CA.

      Kinda makes you think the info might be bogus, eh?

    4. Re:New SPAMmer to abuse by Holophax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. If that part didn't look bogus, I would hope everyone would think an address of 12345 and a phone number (minus area code) of 123-4567 would give it away.

      The stone part I think was looking past the even more obvious bits.

  61. Limits by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I totally agree, The FTC has to have some kind of limit on how many complaints are needed before they take action against someone, and 46,000 isn't that large a number when you're talking about a country with 300 million people in it.

    The FTC taking action against Microsoft or Disney because 100 people sent email to the FTC might sound funny, but you wouldn't be laughing when your or a friend's small buisness got shut down because some joker thought it would be funny or a neighbor was annoyed and a single email was enough to get the FTC moving.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree, The FTC has to have some kind of limit on how many complaints are needed before they take action against someone, and 46,000 isn't that large a number when you're talking about a country with 300 million people in it.

      Of course it is! It only takes about 46,000 people to get a proposition on the ballot for a state election (obviously, this varies with your state's population). 46,000 complaints for something as trivial and commonplace as a spam e-mail is pretty exceptional.

  62. uce@ftc.gov by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Why post a question we all know the answer to?

    For one thing, not all of us know the answer to.

    For another thing, spambots spidering Slashdot will pick up a highly moderated post and add uce@ftc.gov to their spam lists.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  63. **SPECULATION** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not use this info without a second source to verify... but I have reason to believe Brain Westby is very much tied to this company: "321studios.com", which is little more than a 5-10 person operation with Brian quite near the top. The company is struggling for cash, and uses many "schemes" to keep the operation afloat (or maybe the parent company is just a cover for the spam operation...). Please some else find out, it's possible I'm way off base here.

  64. I've gotta disagree with you by bobKali · · Score: 1

    I don't see any real difference between this guy's spam and someone selling shoes via spam, a dating service, or viagra. The crime (in my opinion) if the theft of my bandwidth - so if his emails are larger (due to pictures) then he's worse than someone sending text-only spam. But to me that's based solely on the size of the message, not its content.

    If he's selling kiddie porn, priated software, or illegal drugs (perscriptions also) then that spam is evidence of another related crime. But I think that sending spam (with forged headers and no UCE flags) is all equally bad per byte without reguard to its content.

  65. quit yer bitchin! by bryanthompson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a good thing. 46k complaints is not that many, when you consider just how many people there are. It's not fair to directly compare that with the population, becuase it just wouldn't work, but It's still a small percentage of people that complained.
    How many of us actually sent an email to the ftc complaining about spam? I bet most of the people bitching about this taking so long never formally complained.
    The fact is, no government can respond to every complaint. I hardly hear anyone saying 'yaay, something good's coming out of this'. Oh wait, i know. Dems can't give any credit to President Bush's administration.

  66. Solution: Spam the FTC! by Chordonblue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey, here's a thought. If it takes 46,000 users to alert the FTC to spam, perhaps the FTC should be 'opted-in' to a few of the things we're subjected to. Why bother directly complaining? Let the government attempt to sort out their own mailboxes for a while!

    Send your spam to *.GOV - heh.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Solution: Spam the FTC! by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did it occur to you that maybe it didn't take 46,000 complaints, but rather that it took a certain amount of time to prepare their case, and during that time they received 46,000 complaints? I don't think they were sitting around waiting for the total to reach 46,000 before taking action.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  67. Ideal test case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Face it, this case is breaking some new ground with the Feds. I think they picked a good one:

    Deceptive subject lines,

    Forged headers (criminal impersonation?),

    Harmed reputation of third parties (tort),

    The indecent content to minors angle,

    Non-functional "remove" link, and

    An offensive "product".
    Yes, this one has pushed about every "hot button" imaginable. A more unsympathetic defendant would be harder to find. If they convict him, it can set a precedent that not only allows them to prosecute other spammers, but fires a big warning shot at all the other spam kings. Go for it!

    1. Re:Ideal test case? by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Well realistically the only thing this will do will make him shift his spamming efforts to more "Legitimate" spamming methods to help pay lawyer fees/fines.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  68. Also get free POP3 Hotmail... in Linux by trentfoley · · Score: 1

    I was excited by the prospect of not having to manually check hotmail and discovered that HotPop is Windows only.

    Thanks to sourceforge, I'm about to install:

    http://hotwayd.sourceforge.net/

    I can't recommend it or comdemn it since I'm just now researching on how to configure it for my system, but its sourceforge page says that it is stable/production fwiw.

    1. Re:Also get free POP3 Hotmail... in Linux by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      I've been runnning it. Rather slow on fetching messages (don't know who's fault that is), but it works fairly well.

      I have gotten some messages that it fails to retrieve and break retrieval until that message is deleted either in OE or the Hotmail interface

  69. Jail-Spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His punishment: His address will be given to Slashdot, who will proceed to bury him alive under mountains of dead-tree style spam

  70. Feckin spammers at MASTERLOANZ.COM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can 45999 of you do me a huge favor and complain about the bastards spamming me with stupid "find the best loans ever" bullshit. Unsubscribing just rotates your email from one of their lists to another, 4 of which i am on. I'd be more likley to buy a rolex from a bum than get a loan from a spammer. After trying everything else I eventually told one WFiege@aol.com (administrativ contact for MASTERLOANZ.com) exactly that, but they think more spam will change my mind.
    Id be eternally greatfull to whoever can tell me who is hosting their website at http://200.216.233.100/masterloanz/ so i can complain some more (yeah)...I ask cause their site isnt acutally hosted by godaddy.com which is where The MASTERLOANZ.com name is registered.

    1. Re:Feckin spammers at MASTERLOANZ.COM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      appears to be a brazilian company "telemar.net.br" after searching the IP address 200.216.233.100 on whois.arin.net it directed me to whois.lacnic.net which sent me to whois.nic.br which gave a detailed whois that the lameness filter won't let me post! but basically the abuse address is listed as: abuse@TELEMAR.NET.BR

      for more information go to:
      http://registro.br/cgi-bin/nicbr/whois

  71. Lucky Spam Recipients.... by St.+Vitus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Too bad it took 46000 complaints to prompt some action

    Here at home, I usually average about 74,000 complaints before I get any action. *sigh*

  72. Consider the 46000 complaint question by dacarr · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Figuring that I send a copy of every spam I receive to the FTC through the address uce@ftc.gov (averaging about 25 per week these days), and assuming that this person is responsible for sending maybe one of those per week, consider that they've received a few from me.

    Now consider that at that ratio, you would basically need 11,500 of me to do this per week for four weeks. Seeing as it's more likely that the UCE addr4esws provided is not well known, it's more likely that it took a couple of months to amass that many spam complaints regarding this.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  73. Post office reporting spammers by kmahan · · Score: 1

    And in other news the government has now agreed to accept that anyone receiving "large volumes" of unwanted snail mail is probably a spammer. They are asking all postal employees to report possible spammers.

    --
    Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
  74. I did not unsubscribe! by SourceHammer · · Score: 1

    I did not unsubscribe! Maybe that is why I get so much spam.

    --



    Open source development is my way of competing with the low-cost programmers in India...
  75. Shouldn't they file when they get ONE complaint? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

    I'm not an American (I wonder how much karma I lose for saying that?) but if I was I'd be mailing my congressperson to complain about the FTC not doing their job properly.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  76. Read the article by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're not going after the spammer, they're going after the person who sent them 46,000 messages.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  77. Re:The FTC? What a Joke... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    They'll likely compile a list of all the email addresses that were spammed to and make them available to spammers.

    Oh yeah, if I were a spammer, the addresses I'd want to add to my list are people who previously complained about spam to the FTC. That'll be great for business!

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  78. Scariness... by Peterus7 · · Score: 0
    The FTC will focus on the "deception" involved (innocent and misleading subject lines, bogus (but real) from/reply to addresses, etc)."

    Have you ever gotten spam from the email account you were using? Now that's scary. For example say my email address is Joe123@hotmail.com and I get an spam from Joe123@hotmail.com. That's happened to me. Does anyone have similar experiences? Anyone understand how it happens?

  79. Drug and porn dealers? by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    In the meantime, don't expect the FTC or anyone from the Bush administration to do anything more than slap the hand of anyone making a good deal of money.

    I don't think it is that simple. Drug dealers and porn producers can make tons of money, and the Bush people love to kick their asses. Where spammers fall on their moral scale is anyones guess.

  80. Re:Shouldn't they file when they get ONE complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Include a nice donation, and maybe they'll listen to you. Seriously, these agencies have much to do with limited resources. They can't possibly investigate every complaint even if their resources were increased orders of magnitude (and that's not about to happen with a recession going on). Their best strategy is to prosecute the big fish, and make a big splash doing so. That scares off a significant number of the small fry, providing the maximum possible benefit for the money spent. Perfect, it isn't--but it's as good as you can do under the circumstances. There's bigger problems in the world than spammers.

  81. Robert Soloway - Big SPAMMER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative



    Please call 888-340-9733 and ask about the special on Penis Enlargers or Boob Enhancers. He (Robert) has great offers ; /

    He also sells SPAMWARE as well. He will be happy to hear from inquiring customers ; >

    Please check out :

    Info on Soloway


    Please send Catalogs to:


    Business Addr:

    279 Granite St.
    Ashland OR

    Alleged Home Addr:

    1547 Upland Place
    Medford Or 97501


    Remember, waste SPAMMER's time & money like they waste our's.

  82. Missing the point! by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    This is the obligatory SPAM thread plug for bayesian filtering.

    That's missing the point. So I haven't seen any spam for a while -- so what, I'm still paying for it! I still have all the associated bandwidth costs, and my ISP still has those plus the associated storage costs (which, of course, they pass along to me and their other customers). Spam isn't a problem that can be solved by shutting your eyes and pretending its not there. It's time for a MILITARY solution! Bomb the suckers back to the stone age! :)

  83. Re:Also get free POP3 Hotmail access for spam free by ender81b · · Score: 1

    Thank you so very much for that link, that is the best thing ever.

  84. Not sure about you but.. by steveargonman · · Score: 1

    I have a rule so all [SPAM?] tags get sent to uce@ftc.gov and I see that atleast 50 a day go there and I have been doing that for atleast 3 months now..