A Timeline Of Spam And Antispam

The solution to getting rid of spam... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:24 · Score: 0, Insightful

is to delete it from your fucking mailbox.

Re:The solution to getting rid of spam... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

Okay, troll, give me your email address, and we'll see how you like deleting 10,000 emails a day. If you mean what you say, you'll give me your address. Otherwise, crawl back into your hole.
Re:The solution to getting rid of spam... by GnarlyNome · 2003-04-27 13:50 · Score: 3, Funny

But..But ..my delete key wore out

--
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Spam, on the otherhand, is stoppable.

But, so many /. postings about spam recently... too much!

Interesting Perspective by ankleteeth · 2003-04-27 13:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article sums it up well, but is this something that is going to ever stop? SPAM to me seems like another one of those things in life like drug dealing for instance. Whatever tactice we take to stop or outlaw it, people are always going to find a way around it. The stronger we make our SPAM filters, the more normal desired mail that is going to get blocked. DOn't get me wrong, I hate Spammers, but I dont see how any of these solutions are going to work. Thats my opinion at least, but as the article says, I suppose suing spammers might have a good effect.

Re:Interesting Perspective by lpontiac · 2003-04-27 14:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

SPAM to me seems like another one of those things in life like drug dealing

I know it's not the main point you were trying to make, but I don't think this is a valid analogy. Drug dealing is a 'victimless' crime in which all parties concerned are consenting. Spamming is not.
Re:Interesting Perspective by r00zky · 2003-04-27 14:21 · Score: 1

Whatever tactice we take to stop or outlaw it, people are always going to find a way around it.

Lifetime imprisionment for spammers? (they're lucky because i'm agaisnt death penalty...)

--
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Re:Interesting Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:23 · Score: 0

For those of us who are old enough to remember where there wasn't any spam, a spam-free internet is a goal worth fighting for. If it means everyone has to move (voluntarily, of course) to a PKI-enabled mail system, ridding the online world of these idiots will be ample reward. Now, if only it were possible to do this with usenet - WITHOUT having to waste someone's valuable time moderating. Oh well, let's focus on things that are possible, shall we?
Re:Interesting Perspective by ankleteeth · 2003-04-27 14:32 · Score: 1

Yes, a good point, I was'nt thinking of a very good analogy to this, but was just trying to state, that whatever you try to do to stop it, someone out there is still going to be producing/selling it, or whatever, but i agree it is a poor analogy
Re:Interesting Perspective by letxa2000 · 2003-04-27 14:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

The article sums it up well
And that's all it does. The article itself doesn't have any new information, insight, or anything to help in the process of eliminating spam. But I guess it's good reading for someone who hasn't had an email account for the last 9 years and is just now becoming interested in what happened to the spam-free email of 1994.
but is this something that is going to ever stop?
This article won't as it doesn't provide anything new. Paul Graham's articles of last year and this year are, to-date, the best real work published on effectively eliminating spam. I've implemented his "plan for spam" and I can say it works as advertised. I'm getting better than 99.5% of spam caught with my only false positives being when my corpus was pretty dang small.
This article says that the real test for Bayesian filtering will be when it becomes so widespread that the spammers need to come up with countermeasures. I agree this will be interesting, even though Paul Graham thinks he already has the answer (see "A Plan For Spam"--find the link yourself). And it seems that if spammers try to implement countermeasures against Bayesian filters, the results are going to be messages for which the countermeasures themselves are going to be easy to add to "charactertistics" in the Bayesian filter. If the spam of the future is "Check this out: http://www.spammersite.com" then you start doing things like calling "Messages where 50% or more of the body are HTTP links" a characteristic, etc. Or you look for the countermeasures and call that a charactertistic.
Bayesian is the answer to spam. Once you try it you won't go back. :)
Re:Interesting Perspective by Steve+B · 2003-04-27 14:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

SPAM to me seems like another one of those things in life like drug dealing for instance. Whatever tactice we take to stop or outlaw it, people are always going to find a way around it.
There are two basic differences between spamming and drug dealing:
1. Spamming produces relatively modest profits for its most successful perpetrators. Major drug dealers routinely make millions of dollars a year. Thus, the former are far less likely than the latter to accept a prison term as an acceptable cost of doing business (particularly since the former are far less likely than the latter to have the sort of "muscle" contacts that will keep them above the bottom of the prison totem pole).
2. Drug dealing generally takes place between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Thus, neither party has an incentive to cooperate with the police. Spamming, on the other hand, takes place between a bandwidth thief and a bandwidth theft victim. The latter has every reason to cooperate with the police, if he is only convinced that the police will actually do something about the problem.
(This difference is what makes drug dealing more respectable than spamming.)

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:Interesting Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 16:11 · Score: 0

...my corpus was pretty dang small.

I know a way to help you with that problem, but you don't seem to be receiving my emails!
Re:Interesting Perspective by sfe_software · 2003-04-27 16:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bayesian is the answer to spam. Once you try it you won't go back. :)

I agree to an extent. I started using Bayesian classification since Mozilla 1.3a (I think) implemented it.

After a couple weeks of "training", it was dead-on accurate. Very little slipped through.

It's been a few months now, and it's gotten worse. Much of my spam seems to be one-liners like "Here's that URL we were looking for: ..." Others contain mis-spellings in common spam-related words, and slip by the filters.

Marking the ones that slip through as Junk causes more problems with false-positives. It's also too easy for a notification from a company that you *did* request, to get marked as spam.

In all, Bayesian is great, and far better than anything else I've ever seen -- but it isn't the holy grail unfortunately. Plus, it's fairly easy for a spammer to tweak his message against a relatively common corpus. I believe that most people would come to the same conclusions as to whether or not something was spam -- and thus an "average" corpus is trivial to create, and tweak your spam against.

I think it'll only get worse if Bayesian classification finds its way into more people's mailboxes. I'd almost prefer that it remain a "geek only" thing (though one could say the same about the Internet itself, and we wouldn't have this problem ;)

--
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Re:Interesting Perspective by silentbozo · 2003-04-27 16:25 · Score: 1

Have you been training your filter against a corpus of known "good" messages as well as the bad? I haven't tried bayesian filtering (I keep having to delete the bayesian scores that spamassassin keeps generating, because it keeps training itself on the wrong messages), but I have been keeping every single piece of spam that makes it past my current filters in order to feed them into a bayesian scoring system (as well as a bunch of good mail.)

I'd be curious to know if you had the same problem with false positives after training the bayesian scoring system with a corpus of "good" mail.
Re:Interesting Perspective by sfe_software · 2003-04-27 17:02 · Score: 1

I'm honestly not completely sure how Mozilla implements Bayesian classification, but I was under the assumption that it did do both. Paul Graham's method involves a corpus of good and bad, and provides for a method to move a message from one corpus to the other (eg, when marking a message as spam, it's removed from the "good" corpus and added to the "bad").

So I assumed Mozilla's implementation was following Paul's specification, but I could be wrong. I do know that, prior to the newer types of spam messages, it worked very well (and still does on the "obvious" stuff). But my false-positive rate has gone up significantly, which I suspect is partly due to my marking the sneaky ones as spam. It throws the whole system off when the difference between good and not-good email is so slight (in the realm of classification).

An article I read a while back -- and disagreed with at the time -- puts some of this into perspective, and can be found here. I'm starting to see first-hand some of his points, and he may be correct. Basically, he says that once spammers defeat Bayesian classification, there's not much more we can do (as far as automated filtering that is).

--
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Re:Interesting Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 17:04 · Score: 0

But you have the option to not deal with a drug dealer, the option dosen't exist to not deal with a spammer, filters are not powerful enough and blacklists are not perfect (I've had to report my friend's pop3 server to his isp as it was blacklisted and thus trying to bounce emails he sent to me)
Re:Interesting Perspective by fferreres · 2003-04-27 17:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your drugs / spam analogy may seem to hold, but does not really. The economics of drugs is that if you ban it, but a lot of CONSUMER desperately want the product, then you'll STILL have drugs beign sold. Note I am not saying that if the drug dealer wants to sell it, they will sell it, the one that's putting the money, the consumer, will be the one rasing the offer so that he can have it.

Spam, on the other hand, only pleases the distributor (the spam services provider) and the producer (seller of the penis enlargement program). It does NOT pleases the consumer, they are not going to pay more for the penis enlargement program just because they seem to start receiving the email less often.

So, in the one hand, you have unstopable offending marketing, on the other hand you have a product that people will literaly kill so the can get doped. Stoping spam is much easier economically. Just make the spammers revenues harder. If you want to stop drug dealers, then burn colombia, bolivia and your corrupted agents (among other places / guys).

--
unfinished: (adj.)
Re:Interesting Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 17:15 · Score: 1, Informative

I agree with you completely.

However, I did see one paper on this which was submitted to the IETF ASRG which was pretty neat on relatively new methodologies to eliminate spam.

You can find it here - Eliminating Spam: Protocol and Infrastructure Changes
.
Re:Interesting Perspective by letxa2000 · 2003-04-28 05:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Agreed. Bayesian all by itself is not perfect. But Bayesian can do 95% of the work reliably, and a little extra filtering can take care of the rest.
I personally advocate Bayesian along with some simple keyword filters that contain mostly known spamvertised domains or spam sources. If it is kept up-to-date that helps.
It's been a few months now, and it's gotten worse. Much of my spam seems to be one-liners like "Here's that URL we were looking for: ..." Others contain mis-spellings in common spam-related words, and slip by the filters.
First, with a sufficiently large corpus the mis-spellings shouldn't slip through. The fact that they slip through means your Bayesian filter is still "learning." At some point, "VIAGRA" might be a 98% chance of spam but V1AGRA will essentially be a 100% chance of spam. The mis-spellings often make it easier to detect spam with confidence and the rest of the email should generally be enough to let Bayesian calculate a good spam percentage.
The one-liners can be caught by improving the Bayesian filter itself: Perhaps a new characteristic considered by Bayesian is "Is the message 1-line long?" or "Is the line 2-lines long?" or "Is more than 40% of the body of the message used to convey an HTTP address?" Things like this are valuable characteristics that will help Bayesian catch even 1-liners. Perhaps 90% of your 1-line messages that have an http reference in it are spam--that's something Bayesian can work with.
Marking the ones that slip through as Junk causes more problems with false-positives.
Really shouldn't.
Plus, it's fairly easy for a spammer to tweak his message against a relatively common corpus. I believe that most people would come to the same conclusions as to whether or not something was spam -- and thus an "average" corpus is trivial to create, and tweak your spam against.
While pretty much everyone will agree on what IS spam, not everyone will agree on what isn't--and that's what's great about Bayesian. Sure, they might avoid the word "Viagra" or "slut" but the headers themselves can be damning, the fact that they have 15 images being loaded off an external site is damning, and the fact that a message with a 60-character body consists of a 30-character HTTP address is also probably damning. They're not going to know I have a best-friend named Fred (which is something that will lower the spam score when it is found in my email). As Paul Graham said, if spammers have to stop using all the words (viagra, porn, slut, etc.) and techniques (images loaded from external servers) that they are using to make their pitch, they're going to be significantly limited in what they can say.
If it gets to a point where they totally mangle their emails with SMS-like substitutions to convey their message, you can also add new characteristics for Bayesian: "Are more than 40% of the tokens unknown?" "Are more than 50% of the tokens unknown?" You can assume that if you have a halfway-decent corpus and more than X% of the tokens in an incoming message are unknown, that may be a good indication of a spammer trying to use mangled words to get their message accross.
Sure, Bayesian as proposed by Paul might not be the final solution. But the countermeasures that spammers use will end up being such that the simple use of those countermeasures will probably be something which can be considered a characteristic of the message which will be further used in identifying it as spam.
In my opinion, the trick will be keeping Bayesian "up to date" in terms of identifying new characteristics that can be used to identify spam. For now, tokens in the message are sufficient.

Unique? Sorry, but.... by djupedal · 2003-04-27 13:27 · Score: 0, Insightful

Brightmail reports that 90 percent of all spam messages are now unique

Those messages can't be singularly classified as 'spam', and simultaneously defined as 'unique'.

Try again, using a reference such as 'variants'....better yet, don't, thanks.

Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by jnana · 2003-04-27 13:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The ones *they see* could be unique if just one person from that mailing reports it to them. Also, they could be including the random text in every email, which actually does make it so that every spam is unique.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by Tralfamadorian · 2003-04-27 13:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Uhm, why do you say that? According to Merriam Webster spam is: unsolicited usually commercial E-mail sent to a large number of addresses.

Why can those messages not be 'personalized' and still fit that definition?

Ever notice that spam now-a-days has random strings of characters placed throughout it? That's to make it unique to prevent spam filters from looking the checksum of the message up in a database and marking it as spam.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:01 · Score: 0

Those messages can't be singularly classified as 'spam', and simultaneously defined as 'unique'.

What are you talking about? That's like saying that people arent't unique because we're all members of the class of humans beings.

Thinking like this, the natural numbers for instance would not be unique because they happen to have some things in common which cause us to call them a set.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by djupedal · 2003-04-27 14:04 · Score: 1

Unique: only one of it's kind (kind being spam...sub-class being asd;laksdlsakd only).

Variant: a change or slight difference

Thus if you receive two emails, and they are both spam as far as you, the receiver are concerned, but they are from two different non-sensical sources (bobo1234 & jano5678), they are variants on the top level 'spam' class, and not unique. They are variations on one theme....junk email.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:04 · Score: 0

No, you're missing his point. He's wrong for another reason, but what he means is that spam is by definition bulk email (aka 1 email sent out to tons of people), but he's forgetting that spam is generally computer generated with some random text added. Same message, but spam1 != spam2 != spam3, etc.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:11 · Score: 0

So fingerprints aren't unique because they are just variants of the top-level 'fingerprint' class, and not unique. Variations on one theme.... fingerprint.
Try it again, Eisenstein.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by Tralfamadorian · 2003-04-27 14:16 · Score: 1

Variant: a change or slight difference

But if there are 100 variants of something, but none of them are the same as any other one, they are all unique.

Maybe my logic unit is busted or something, but I don't see where you're coming from.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by djupedal · 2003-04-27 14:31 · Score: 1

Humans are a unique species, and while each of us is an individual, we are not 'unique'....maybe special in the eyes of our loved ones, but simply variants in the eyes of future archeologists.

While a casual definition of unique may be allowed, or even encouraged in water cooler chit/chat, such usage in a 'report' can lead to generalizations and subjective conclusions on otherwise valid data. Why wrap your (specific) data in general terms...not much point, and most people know better than to trust it. An 'opinion' does not a 'report' make. The link is to an opinion, not report that can serve as a foundation for conclusion. Opinions are like....well, you know.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by Steve+B · 2003-04-27 14:49 · Score: 1

Ever notice that spam now-a-days has random strings of characters placed throughout it? That's to make it unique to prevent spam filters from looking the checksum of the message up in a database and marking it as spam.
This should be prosecuted under the existing computer-cracking laws. It's no different from shoveling a dictionary at a password prompt -- both are attempts to break past a security mechanism designed to keep you out of other people's computers.

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by djupedal · 2003-04-27 14:49 · Score: 1

If there is more than one, then it's not unique. Fingerprints are attributes...a sub-class of a parent 'mammal'. I don't care if one is thick and one is thin....dumbass.
Re:Unique? Sorry, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 15:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

See if you can follow me here. Every finger print, or every snowflack, is unique because no two are exactly the same. This is almost universally acknowledged. That doesn't make it right, but one person alone can't go and redefine a word like 'unique' to suit his will.
Btw, applying OOP thinking to the world is a recipe for mistake and confusion. Fingerprint, under your definition, would be an attribute of a sub-class of mammal. Human is a sub-class of mammal, and fingerprint is an attribute of human. It so happens that no two are exactly alike, so that is why almost everybody except for you says that fingerprints are unique.

Re:This concept has been around for a while by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:27 · Score: 0

At least it wasn't goatse

personally I think.. by sickboy_macosX · 2003-04-27 13:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I feel that SPAM should be considered like Telemarketing. And I think we should be able to opt out without notifying someone that our email address is life and getting filled. Interesting Article..I knew about the Green Card lottery, but I didnt know about DEC sending emails to people.

--
--- /* In Soviet Russia, the Mac OS X kernel panics you! */

Re:personally I think.. by rf0 · 2003-04-27 18:32 · Score: 1

The problem arises in that how do you get off someone's personal list? If they were pulling from a centeral repository then yes this would be fine. However most spammers use their own lists (or ones they bought). The best way to get off the list is to not be on it in the first place.

rus

--
Cheap UK and US VPS

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:31 · Score: 0

That's the guy that had the debate at MIT with a bunch of students and professors. None of them could defeat him in debate, the story goes, and nobody got the 10000.

To tell you the truth, I don't completely understand the guy, but what I do understand makes sense.

For you Viewing Pleasure by Michael's+a+Jerk! · 2003-04-27 13:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

We Present the world's first Make Money Fast Spam

--

I'm not Seth.

Re:For you Viewing Pleasure by Technician · 2003-04-27 16:57 · Score: 1

Before responding, here is what the post office says regarding a chain letter get rich scheme.
http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspe ct/chainl et.htm

Just needed to post the counterpoint.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:For you Viewing Pleasure by bakawally · 2003-04-27 17:16 · Score: 1

umm...as i recall this is a pyramid scheme and is also quite illegal. i think this goes beyond the realm of spam(unless people start getting spam about hitmen or drugs or something).

Moo by NanoGator · 2003-04-27 13:35 · Score: 1, Funny

Beef, the anti-spam.

--
"Derp de derp."

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:36 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Is this trolling? No.

Is this insightful? Yes. Because time is unstoppable, abd fighting against it is futile.

It IS better acting within it, realising our place in the universe. I guess only Star Trek freaks will mod this as troll as it shatters their dreams.

Well.... by Gefiltefish · 2003-04-27 13:52 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm gonna need all that money from Nigeria to afford the necessary penis enlargement and credit rating accentuation!

Examined from the inside, the world of spam has created its own perverse little self-sustaining ecosystem.

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

Are you by chance religious? I ask because the phrase 'our place in the universe' smacks of religion. We are the lords of our universe, if we choose to be and develop our minds sufficiently. Not everybody shares your parochial and limited outlook on the place of humans in the universe.

Look at the stupid spammer by NewtonsLaw · 2003-04-27 13:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Today's Aardvark Daily shows exactly why spam is the problem it is -- there are too many stupid people out there who believe they can get something for nothing.

Check out just how lame the spammer in question is and how, in his world, the word "free" has a whole different meaning to the one most people have.

Despite his blatant misrepresentations and the fact that he's promoting his scam via spam, this guy has got people queuing up to hand over their "stupidity tax".

What's worse though is that the spammer is so lame he's effectively exposing the credit card details of *all* those who sign up. You even get to look inside his two email accounts because he doesn't have a clue about choosing sensible passwords.

We're quick to blame spammers for the problem but maybe the truth is that the tide of spam is driven more by the stupid and greedy people who respond to these "too good to be true" emails.

Re:Look at the stupid spammer by huistr · 2003-04-27 21:46 · Score: 1

It reminds me of a soda tv commercial I saw couple years ago:
Two d00des are watching tv commercial for the soda they drink. They see awesome bikini-clad girls dancing on Hawaiian beach, drinking the soda, all in LSD-inspired colors. One of the guys sips from his can and exclaims: "mine is busted".

Re:MC Trotsky Trot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 13:59 · Score: 0

I guess you have to be familiar with the works of both Leon Trotsky and Run DMC to get a chuckle out of that. Oh well. Heh.

Antispam by Tuxinatorium · 2003-04-27 13:59 · Score: 4, Funny

*scotty voice*
Captain, the spam/antispam reactor is gon ta blow!! I cant give ya any more porno!

--
Repeal the DMCA!

Origin of Spam by Shazow · 2003-04-27 14:01 · Score: 2, Funny

The beginning of spam:
Moses brought down the ten commandments.

Result:
Related spam has grown exponentially into dozens of religions.

Moderators sure be stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:01 · Score: 0

Subject pretty much says it all.

Anti-spam mail service = id yourself by 192939495969798999 · 2003-04-27 14:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't see how to create anti-spam without some form of identification, simply because without an ID, anyone could use a mail type system to send junk messages to people and not get caught - because there's no ID, of course!

--
stuff |

Re:Anti-spam mail service = id yourself by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 18:46 · Score: 0

I made exactly this point to the faculty in my former department a few years ago. They had some difficulty understanding why you can't just program a mailer to anticipate the content of all possible messages that they might or not like to receive. You're absolutely right.

I'd like to see the day arrive when I can tell my mailer to reject any message that has not been digitally signed and certified. Of course, that's only part of the solution, since we will then discover that not all certification authorities deserve our trust. But it seems clear f rom thee spam example that identity is the minimal frameework for building a responsible society.

The war on spam/drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:09 · Score: 1, Informative

Not that we should not pursue anti-spam countermeasures but spam will never clearly fully go away. Its like warez, its like mp3's, its like drugs, its like this, that and everything. You can try but you'll never really get a hold on it. Minimise it as much and as conveniently as you can, but as soon as you start spending ages trying to outlaw it you will find you've wasted more time than it would have taken to delete the spam and move on with your life.

Re:The war on spam/drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:14 · Score: 0

Goes a little like this:

From an9420@anon.penet.fi Sat Oct 9 13:37:06 EET 1993

this was an anonymous post, i dont even remember where i found it. it will, however, be expanded on whenever i find the time for it. in the mean time, thanks to Theoderich and too all of you, have fun.

decayed kisses,
the pink and purple
tinsel fairy of love
and necrophilia

NECROPHILIA

by Theoderich
I: Introduction

Very few text files have been written regarding the sexual tendencies and practices of necrophiliacs. While most people would prefer to believe that we do not exist we most certainly do as is obvious to anyone who visits a cemetery during our nightly rampages.

Necrophiliacs prefer to go about their business alone; sharing is not a part of this alternative lifestyle as the corpse usually wears out fairly quickly. This is not to say that the occasional orgy involving four or five necrophiliacs and about a dozen or so corpses does not occur, but it is very rare. In this file I will describe common (and some uncommon) techniques which necrophiliacs use to gain satisfaction from their stiff partners. Hopefully these vivid descriptions will encourage you to go out to your local cemetery and to join our ranks!

II: Finding a partner

Finding a partner for your necrophiliac activities is definitely the hardest part. You not only have to gain access to the corpse but you also have to find one which suits your tastes. Granted, some
necrophiliacs would screw roadkill if given the chance but most of us are more discriminating. Your chances depend upon where you pick up your date. If you have access to a morgue it would definitely be your best bet as the corpses there are usually the freshest and have not yet been treated for burial. They may be a bit chilly because they've been lying in the meat locker for days but that really shouldn't make a big difference to the determined necrophiliac. Cemeteries are a bit harder to deal with as finding a screwable corpse is harder to do.However, if you know how to interpret signs this shouldn't be a problem.
If a grave consists of a mound of fresh dirt and is covered with flowers,chances are that the stiff hasn't been laying here for too long. Rotting flowers on the mound usually hint to the state of the corpse as well.
Some people are exclusively into 'porking the bone', i.e. sex with skeletons. In this case you can dig up almost any grave and hope that the inhabitant hasn't yet disintegrated into dust. Try to scope out a fairly secluded cemetery for your passions unless you like a sense of danger to go along with the sex. Having anyone catch you in the act is NOT fun, and if you're picked up by a cop chances are that you won't be able to screw anything but Bubba behind bars for the next few decades.
People are generally not understanding of the necrophiliac lifestyle, so it will probably be a long time before we can come out of the closet.

III: Preparation

Depending upon where you are at this point you'll have either a little or a lot of work to do. The person in the morgue will obviously have to do little more than to open the locker, pull the corpse out and bang away. If you're one of the cemetery people you'll have more work to do. An experienced necrophiliac is always equipped with the bare essentials: a shovel, vaseline and a box of rubbers. Why the shovel is needed should be obvious, but if the ground is hard then you might need more equipment to dig up your date. Vaseline is used to loosen the corpse up a bit. This makes it less likely for a body part to break off while
you're having fun and it also prevents your mantool from becoming too irritated while screwing the dried out pussy. The BOX of condoms is used to play it safe; no necrophiliac should be without it. You never know which STDs your partner had during his/her lifetime, and believe me, it doesn't get any better after the person dies. You can put on more than one rubber for extra prote

We owe a lot to anti-spam fighters by bigberk · 2003-04-27 14:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Anti-spam activists go to a lot of trouble to help locate and identify people and groups responsible for flooding the net with spam (or who provide spamware to misinformed laypeople). These same good-doers are often sought out by spammers, sued by groups of them, have their privacy invaded (release of home phone, address) in effort to scare them into shutting up.

I am not kidding here. Take a look at some of the projects that scare the hell out of professional spammers:

spamhaus keeps an exhaustive list of major spam operations.

SPEWS lists areas of the Internet that have frequently be used for spamming, including detailed evidence files and histories of ISPs that turn a blind eye to spam.

Spamware vendor list has a listing of sites that sell spamming software -- without which we would have little or no spam.

Re:We owe a lot to anti-spam fighters by Dossy · 2003-05-03 14:34 · Score: 1

Take a look at some of the projects that scare the hell out of professional spammers:

I honestly don't think the projects you mention scare spammers. There's plenty of ways of getting around SPEWS and spamhaus and other "realtime" (ha, yeah right) blackhole lists.

I think the only thing that would REALLY put a damper on a professional spammer's day is if a majority (or at least, all of the major mail sites such as AOL and Hotmail and Yahoo!, etc.) started using TMDA.

If it becomes impossible to send unsolicited mail from a forged return address that hasn't at one point been authenticated as a valid return address, because everyone is using TMDA-like mail exchangers, then spammers will get shut down pretty quickly.

-- Dossy

--
Dossy's Blog

Re:This concept has been around for a while by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:15 · Score: 0

fuckin moderators. modding shit up without even looking at the link. this fucking site has gone to shit.

it will probably be closed in 6 months along with the rest of the money losing osdn. Our Sinkhole of Dollars Network.

I remember when this site was good. It's fucking turned to shit cuz the guys that started it don't give a rat's ass anymore since they cashed out long ago.

There's a Reasonable, Albeit Draconian Solution: by NeuroManson · 2003-04-27 14:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

About 7 years back, when the WWW was still cutting its teeth, I had an epiphene; The best thing about the internet, is now everyone can use it. The worst thing about the internet, is now EVERYONE can use it.

Simply put, we should require some form of an operators' license to own or operate a computer. Despite there being radical differences between the types of machinery, an adequate comparison would be to either automobiles or firearms licensing legislation.

Before anyone makes the claim that this is not an adequate comparison, if could be eventually, the financial costs of such practices is matching, and quickly overtaking those of firearm and auto related damages. With time, eventually it could cross over to life threatening potential (for example, if someone decided to make a virus with a specific angle, wiping out or modifying records for grandma's prescription drugs).

(1) The majority of abuses involving computers involve people who consider themselves "above the law", with no care in regards to potential damages that abusing the system can incur. Virus writers, spammers, script kiddies, warez distributors and DDOS operaters often fall under this category. For sake of comparison, lets file this under speeders, reckless drivers, drunk drivers, or road rage. Similarly, the comparison can be made for firearms.

(2) The majority of problems that occur within the computer industry and most media involve people who are poorly trained (or not trained at all), or poorly advised in using their computers. People who do not patch their systems, do not operate a firewall, and open e-mail attachments to unleash every iteration of klez upon the net. This one can be filed as those who pretend a car or a gun is a toy, and treat them accordingly.

(3) Despite the whole "for the children" trend in regards to the internet, there is no practical method to truly enforce it without trampling every detail in the constitution. Therefore, unlike most offered solutions, informing and training the young'uns in how to go about using a computer responsibly would be ideal. Similarly, do the same with new computer users. Give them a basic course, then a test, and upon passing said test, they can purchase their own computer.

The problem is, as illustrated by current tech problems, along with the e-commerce industry's shortcomings and varied collapses, Joe Sixpack tends to think of the computer as an appliance. A new magical alternative to the TV that can make all their dreams come true. They need to be informed that the computer is a tool. And just like any tool, it can be abused, and that there could be consequences, something that most of them are for the most part either ignorant to, or even defiant of. Therefore, if they have this knowlege, then they cannot claim ignorance, and as such could finally be enforced, then charges can be pressed, and at least for the short run, problems can be avoided.

After all, if they could lock away Mitnick (sp?) for over 5 years for downloading a few files, why can't they lock away a virus author or spammer for operating without a permit? At least that way they can set a precedent. Hell, I'm sure a good deal of spammers out there are in violation of other things, such as unpaid taxes, working without a business license, et al. And how many of them use their proceeds towards drug use, pornography, etc? Make the bill tough enough and at least the spammers in the US can be eradicated virtually overnight.

There. The can of worms is open. Feel free to bait a hook.

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

How I've Cut Down My Spam by MBCook · 2003-04-27 14:19 · Score: 4, Informative

My e-mail address is plastered all over the internet, and I don't feel like changing it. I have been getting more and more spam, but I've got it pretty much under controll. For the record I get 20-30 e-mails a day, only 0-2 of which is ham. Here is my little anti-spam journey.

First I ignored it. This worked for a while, but my paitence didn't grow nearly as fast as the spam volume (I've been on the net for years, so I remember when spam was a rare occurace). These are only the major things. I've tried others here and there.

Next I started using MS Outlook's built in spam catcher. This is basically a blacklist that you maintain that you can easily add things too. This actually worked somewhat well, but as the use of forged addresses (and just plain random ones) grew, this became less effective.

Next I started to use SpamNet. I used this up untill about last week. This used to be somewhat effective, and in the last month or so has been almost completely effective. This is the most wonderfull anti-spam device I've used. It was great near the end of the beta. But now it's out of beta and I'm not going to pay $5 a month to stop something I shouldn't get in the first place. Sorry Cloudmark.

When Spamnet started, it was pretty effective, but still left a decent amount to be desired. So I searched around and found SAProxy. This program let's you run Spamassassin on Windows, and the combination of this and Spamnet worked wonders. As Spamnet got better, this became more or less useless.

Unfortunatly, I had to get rid of Spamnet, due to the afformentioned monthly fee. So now all I have is SAProxy. It does work great, and it does get better with each new release. Now only about 3 messages a day get through, which is quite fantastic. Only 5% or so of the spam I get gets though. I could set the limit lower (to catch more spam) but right now I don't have to worry about it catching ham (it never has for me) and I don't want to have to start wading through my spam folder to check for ham. I thought I was using this stuff to not have to do that in the first place?

So in short, I'm now using SAProxy and quite happy. If there was a free version of Spamnet, I'd use it, but there isn't. If you're on Windows and have a supported e-mail client, get SAProxy, and save yourself a huge headache.

So what will I use next? I've been thinking of setting up a perl script to automatically find the home address of people who spam me and sending them a few ICBMs with notes attached like "HOW TO WIN AT EBAY WITH FREE CHEAP ICBMS THAT INCREASE YOUR SEXLIFE AND GROW HAIR."

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:21 · Score: 1

Just took a gander at his site and it is without doubt;

a) the worst example of html I have seen since at least 1994.

b) a complete stinking pile of unsubstantiated crap.

c) racist.

And Now... by Michael's+a+Jerk! · 2003-04-27 14:22 · Score: 5, Informative

According to This Site, The earliest spam was sent by DEC in 1978.

Einar Stefferud, a longtime net hand, reports that DEC announced a new DEC-20 machine in 1978 by sending an invite to all ARPANET addresses on the west coast, using the ARPANET directory, inviting people to receptions in California. They were chastised for breaking the ARPANET appropriate use policy, and a notice was sent out reminding others of the rule.

Interestingly, a young Richard Stallman argued that spammers had every right to send spam.

--

I'm not Seth.

Re:And Now... by jnana · 2003-04-27 14:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Interestingly, a young Richard Stallman argued [templetons.com]that spammers had every right to send spam.
But he retracted in the very next email:
Well, Geoff forwarded me a copy of the DEC message, and I eat my words. I sure would have minded it! Nobody should be allowed to send a message with a header that long, no matter what it is about.

Spammers are trying harder by waynemcdougall · 2003-04-27 14:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

I would have thought that spammers wouldn't expend much effort at trying to get around sophisticated anti-spam techniques. After all, if you go to the trouble to block spam, you're probably not going to respond.

But of course some of the spammers get paid based on how many 'eyes' (or HTTP requests) are generated, so if they can just get through to an Outlook Express preview pane, it's worthwhile....until 'marketers' wise up.

By virtue of having my own domain name, outside of the United States, I now receive 1200+ spams a day (and noticeably increasing). People who advocate 'just hitting the delete key' make me fume. That's a lot of delete key. And a lot of time. I've now reached the point where false positives on spam detection by automated software are less likely than me hitting delete one too many times. Thanks to DNSBL I can reduce spam from 1200+ a day to 10 a day, and Paul Graham's Bayesian filtering reduces that down to 2 or 3 a week.

I'd like to share some recent observations I've made - I haven't seen this referenced elsewhere but maybe I don't know where to look (so feel free to point me where this is mentioned elsewhere).

First a minor observation that spam increases markedly on the weekends - because peop,e aren't around to close down open relays or spamming accounts?

Secondly, spammers have started adding non-spammy words (eg capacitor) and constrcuted nonsense words (capacitorsggg) inside their messages. I can only see this as a direct response to Paul Graham's approach. I don't see it as working - the rest of the message is just TOO spammy - but it sugegst to me that spammers see such an apprroach as a threat. I've seen these words sprinkled at the start of plain text emssages and after the /body> /html> of HTML messages.

Thirdly, what I've recently noticed is that a spammer will connect to my mail server, say HELO, do a MAIL FROM: and then QUIT. Then they connect to my system again and use a HELO command that is my OWN IP address. They also include a fake Received header that makes it look as though the message originated from my own machine. Nice try you scummy spammers. SpamCop is smart enough to see through that ploy. I wonder how other system's will respond.

Fourthly, I've noticed that often when I complain to SpamCop I become the victim of a JoeJob. Currently I'm getting all the delivery failures coming back to random alphanumeric usernames at my domain. Sigh. Time to strip off my domain when I lodge SpamCop submissions eh?

--
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz

Starting over by pben · 2003-04-27 14:24 · Score: 0

In the late 80's there was a bumber sticker in Texas that said Please God let there be anothor oil boom, we'll do it right next time. They got a tech boom instead.

Maybe it is time to start over again. It is only a matter of time before AOL/MSN gets together and comes up with a tech fix that works, mostly. Maybe it is time to get ahead of them and come up with an open standard. Some day Microsoft is going to see that the only way the butterfly can protect the kiddies like in the commerical is to start over and stick it to Linux at the same time.

Now I have to go off and delete my email account and come of with a new accout.

Re:Starting over by OpenYourEyes · 2003-04-27 14:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
Well, in Houston they did get an energy boom in the 90's. And they messed it up same as they did in the '80s. Enron is the visible example, but all of the energy companies in Houston are suffering as well.
So to continue your analogy - even if we start over with a new idea, it won't work, because we seem to have the infinite capacity to make messes. Any solution to the spam problem that involves starting over would probably also cause one or more of the following (draw the analogies to Houston and Enron if you wish):
- Raising the price of communications, which the Internet has forced to drop. Even the refutable payment schemes would increase the cost of basic use, which is contrary to some of the Internet acheivements.
- Putting power in the hands of a few large companies instead of distributing it amongst everyone, which the Internet has done. Insert paranoia as appropriate.
- Prevent information from getting to the people who want it. Filters are a good stop-gap for now, but I think they will start to cause problems soon.
- Resistance to migration. Competing designs. Lack of adoption due to cost and effort. IPv6 has been out for how long? Email has been forgeable for eternity, PGP has been available for almost as long - and people largely don't use it.
- A very good chance that spammers would find a way to exploit the new system same as the old. Consider, for example, that even with the authentication available in AIM, the ammount of spam is tremendous. Amazing how fast they adapt.

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:26 · Score: 0

you sound like your 'educated stupid' to me. funny how you can't disprove the theory, so you attack the html code for the page and throw mud. ad hominam is fallacous.

From the article... by ktakki · 2003-04-27 14:26 · Score: 4, Funny

A few consulting firms and foundations have also surveyed the volume of spam. Jupiter Research estimates that the average e-mail user gets about 2,200 spams a year, and the Gartner Group says that corporate e-mail is 25 to 35 percent spam.

In 2002 I received over 18,000 pieces of spam, for a total of 163 megabytes. Compare this with the year 2000 (6 MB) and 1996 (183 KB). Based on the spam I've gotten so far this year, 2003 should see a bumper crop of 25 to 30 thousand pieces. This is just my POP3 account, and not my venerable Hotmail account that's now a smoking hole in the ground.

If I'm ever lucky enough to meet a spammer in person, I will kick him in the nuts repeatedly, until he sings soprano. Of course, I'll be chanting "Just hit Delete...just hit Delete" the whole time.

k.

--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

Re:From the article... by prichardson · 2003-04-27 15:01 · Score: 1

In my POP3 acct Spam received so far: none I've had the account for over a year. I managed to acheive this simple feat by only giving my address to people i kow aren't stupid or assholes. I get about one spam a day that ets past yahoo's filters in the address my slashdot account is attached to.

--
Help I'm a rock.
Re:From the article... by Ironpoint · 2003-04-27 15:18 · Score: 1

"over 18,000 pieces of spam"

Maybe its time to stop posting your email everywhere on the net.
Re:From the article... by huistr · 2003-04-27 21:29 · Score: 1

How about holding spammers to their promises?
I mean considering commercial emails to be
contracts, so if they promised "free $$$",
they have to give them to you. All those penis
enlargement promises could become very exciting
for those eligible if fulfilled sequentially :-)
Re:From the article... by sholden · 2003-04-28 00:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

In 2002 I received over 18,000 pieces of spam, for a total of 163 megabytes.
You get much smaller spams than me...

In 2002 my spam filter (which didn't come close to catching everything) caught 4546 spams for a total of 78 megabytes.

My spam has noticably increased this year with more of it getting past my filter (which I think I've fixed now). My spam folder for March has 854 spams in it, for 18 megabytes. Multiplying those number by 12 is too scary to even contemplate.

I use a seperate email address for things like online shopping and web site account creations and the like - it's a spam magnet, but I only check it when I'm actually expecting something (because I just ordered a book or something) so I don't care.

I do seem to get at least 2 copies of each spam since sholden@*.cs.usyd.edu.au ends up in my mailbox.

Re:There's a Reasonable, Albeit Draconian Solution by MBCook · 2003-04-27 14:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, I thought of requiring a license a long time ago too. You can see at http://www.foobarsoft.com/opinions/internetproblem sandsolutions.shtml. Of course, the real problem with this is that you'd have to get every country to agree to do this and make sure no one cheats and such. It would have been nice long ago, but it's way too late in the game to do it today.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.

Re:This concept has been around for a while by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:28 · Score: 0

I'm sorry to break this to you cowboy, but most of the 'fuckin moderators' are just ordinary joes like you and me (not employees of OSDN).

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:33 · Score: 0

That smacks of Secular Humanism, which is a religion in it's own right.

the anti-spam measures by jnana · 2003-04-27 14:37 · Score: 4, Funny

should be as effective as slashdot's anti-troll measures... **ducks**

Drug dealing is victimless? by switched4OSX · 2003-04-27 14:37 · Score: 0

How can you believe that drug dealing is victimless. Not only does this activity create crimes in which innocents are injured, the money that is generated supports drug lords in (usually) Central and South American countries. These people have no trouble killing enforcement agents, alot of which have families that depend on them. Victimless, indeed.

Re:Drug dealing is victimless? by vorpal22 · 2003-04-27 15:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

You do realize that legalizing drugs would address every single problem that you've mentioned in your post, don't you?
Re:Drug dealing is victimless? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 16:21 · Score: 0

And buying gasoline doesn't support terrorists either I guess.

*next!*
Re:Drug dealing is victimless? by switched4OSX · 2003-04-27 17:02 · Score: 1

Yes, that is the answer. Let's legalize drugs. After all, things like herion and cocaine can be used in a recreational manner. Having had a sister and a teenage daughter who got mixed up in this junk (one cocaine, one herion) I think its safe to say that I think this stuff does not need to be legalized.
Re:Drug dealing is victimless? by vorpal22 · 2003-04-27 21:54 · Score: 1

Certainly, heroin and cocaine can be used in a recreational manner. I personally have never played with cocaine as I'm not particularly interested in stimulants (I'm naturally an overstimulated person), but I have experimented fairly extensively with opiates (never heroin directly), and have not demonstrated any particular tendencies towards addiction in that domain.

Now I have tried a wide variety of drugs in recreational and spiritual settings, and the only ones that I have ever gotten addicted to are alcohol and tobacco. Because of this and the hardships that alcohol abuse instilled in my life, do I propose that alcohol should be illegalized? No - just because I was unable to be responsible with alcohol is no indication that others cannot drink in moderation or without negative consequences.

Drug use is a victimless crime. I'm all for drug awareness education and full legalization, and I see no reason why our bodies should be governed. You know when you get into certain classes of drugs that you may be treading dangerous territory, and you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Put the responsibility on the individual, not on the legal system.

Besides, personally, I would feel *much* safer ingesting cocaine and opiates (which have both been in use by humans for hundreds of years) than the bevvy of experimental, poorly-understood chemical additives that are being crammed in our food in ridiculous levels these days. At least, drugs have something to offer me, whereas preservatives, flavour enhancers, growth hormones, pesticides, etc... serve no purpose other than to fatten some corporation's bank accounts.
Re:Drug dealing is victimless? by Omkar · 2003-04-28 01:04 · Score: 1

Drugs are guarenteed to be bad for you. Additives at least try to be beneficial. You feel safer w/ drugs? Too much "experimentation."
Re:Drug dealing is victimless? by vorpal22 · 2003-04-28 03:24 · Score: 1

Drugs are "guaranteed" to be bad for you? What are you talking about??? Very few drugs are addictive or physically damaging. Indeed, it's highly likely that a single meal at McDonald's is ridiculously worse for you, in terms of cholesterol or sheer chemicals, than smoking a joint. And people have been able to use opiates for most of their lives without significant physical problems (apart from physical addiction, which in itself, is not dangerous with respect to opiates).

You can't make sweeping generalizations about drugs with regards to issues like dangers. Comparing marijuana to crack cocaine is like comparing apples to water buffalo; certainly, there are some commonalities, but there are many more differences.

Additives try to be beneficial? Again, I don't see the logic in this. How is MSG beneficial to me, the consumer? All it does is allow Campbell's Soup to skimp out on the chicken in their broth and cut corners with regards to quality. Since I've gotten off MSG and other chemicals, I dropped 67 lbs without doing a lick of exercise or cutting calories (apparently, this is not uncommon, either), and I haven't felt better.
Re:Drug dealing is victimless? by Dachannien · 2003-04-28 14:21 · Score: 1

I would love to see some references to some reputable scientific studies on this topic - at least, studies that support your opinion. Considering that entire government agencies are filled to the brim with studies that state otherwise, I'd think you have your work cut out for you.

Dating Service for RMS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:39 · Score: 1, Funny

4) Would a dating service for people on the net be "frowned upon" by DCA? I hope not. But even if it is, don't let that stop you from notifying me via net mail if you start one.

Just like anti-virus... by SpyderFan · 2003-04-27 14:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Spam is not going to stop. It will continue despite laws and regulations which do not apply world-wide and are difficult or impossible to enforce.

There will not be a "new" SMTP because the existing one is too well established.

There have been many wonderful suggestions posted as previous stories and also as responses to previous stories. Many, perhaps most, of the great solutions require a critcal mass of people to adopt a technical solution at the server. None of those will happen.

The best solution will be individuals or companies adopting products like Spam Sleuth or Spam Sleuth Enterprise which have a variety of detection methods including Bayesian (statistical analysis), EMail Stamps (shift cost to sender), Bouncing (trick the spammers), as well as the usual Whitelists, IP Blacklists, e-mail address Blacklists, etc.

Just like computer viruses, those people who use the technical solutions will be immune, and those that don't will continue to suffer. The tools exist. Slogging through spam each day is a choice.

Re:Just like anti-virus... by kimgh · 2003-04-27 16:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Spam is not going to stop. It will continue despite laws and regulations which do not apply world-wide and are difficult or impossible to enforce.
Oh, I dunno. Fax SPAM was effectively stopped by law; is there any reason to believe that an effective Federal law won't work to at least reduce the volume?
Larry Lessig's proposal for a law, which is actually being introduce by my own Representative, Zoe Lofgren, may very well reduce the flow
I would like to see that law include provisions for going after companies that hire spammers, rather than just the spammers themselves. I don't believe that there is such a provision in the current proposal, but it's been a few weeks since I read it, so I might be wrong. But that might be a helpful addition, if it's not already there.
Finally, I read recently that there are only about 180 major spammers responsible for most of the spam we get. 180 people is not an impossible number to arrest, charge, and shut down. The remaining bit players will probably dry up if the major guys and gals are gone...
Re:Just like anti-virus... by SpyderFan · 2003-04-27 18:10 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the laws. I just don't believe they will be effective at stopping the spammers.
Let's pass the laws. If, or rather, when they don't stop the spam, let's turn to technological solutions.
I hope I'm wrong. If the laws are sufficient, and enforcement is effective, e-mail will be better for it.
Re:Just like anti-virus... by stevey · 2003-04-27 21:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh, I dunno. Fax SPAM was effectively stopped by law;
That's possible because it's easy to trace the sender of a fax message, and they were almost always sent from within the same country as you.

Sadly with spam these two things are not true; spam is sent via forged addresses almost all the time, and even if you track down the true sending machine/user it's somebody in America or the far east - which wouldn't be covered by any law created over here in the UK.

I'd be happy with spam if it was possible to identify the senders; a nice big lart would do the trick - but for a law to come into effect it would have to be global in nature.

Re:Waterhose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:39 · Score: 0

while you're at it, tell me where I can get me some wangled taterhosen?

Drug Dealing is NOT a victimless crime by MasterOfMagic · 2003-04-27 14:40 · Score: 1

Drug dealing is a 'victimless' crime in which all parties concerned are consenting.

So all of the people that get killed by stray bullets in drug deals gone bad consented to being shot? Drug dealing is not a victimless crime.

Re:Drug Dealing is NOT a victimless crime by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 15:00 · Score: 0

the drug dealing itself is surely victimless. But because it has been made illegal, it can be of advantage to combine it with non-victimless crimes
Re:Drug Dealing is NOT a victimless crime by Dyolf+Knip · 2003-04-27 16:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Drug deals being conducted with guns is entirely a consequence of their being illegal. You may note that gang warfare over alcohol is rather hard to find nowadays, but it was quite intense during Prohibition and in fact is a going concern over in Saudi Arabia where (purely coincidentally, of course) it's illegal.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Drug Dealing is NOT a victimless crime by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 16:22 · Score: 0

Drug deals being conducted with guns is entirely a consequence of their being illegal.

So you're saying that if we legalized selling drugs on the streets that street gangs would suddenly stop carrying? What neighborhood do you live in? Just because something is legal does not mean that people will stop using force or the threat of force while engaging in that activity.

If it were legal, then I think guns would be more prevalant in the drug business because then drug deals could happen anywhere, and the only way to assure someone that you are good for the drug deal would be to outgun him. Or at least that's what somebody would argue in court.
Re:Drug Dealing is NOT a victimless crime by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 17:27 · Score: 0

except that if drugs were legal, selling drugs would no longer be lucrative, so organized crime would have no reason to sell.

the money trail by deus_X_machina · 2003-04-27 14:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

What makes no sense about spam is that it seems like the only people really making money off of it are the spammers themselves. It's a shame I don't have it on hand, but more than 75% of the services being offered according to one account, aren't even legit, the main exception being pornography websites. (I'm sure many of you will remember the article, and someone will respond to this with it).

Case in point, what I'm wondering is, who are the companies funding spammers? Judging by the relativly low success rate of bulk email, I'd imagine you're actually losing quite a bit of money to pay a company money to send out emails for your company, emails that potentially damage the reputation of your company due to the vast amounts of illigitimate business and anti spam sentiment on the net.

Simply stated, it sounds like:

Step 1: Send mass emails
Step 3: collect profit

I willing to bet their business model was derived from the underpants gnomes...

--
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill

Re:There's a Reasonable, Albeit Draconian Solution by dbitter1 · 2003-04-27 14:41 · Score: 2, Informative

After all, if they could lock away Mitnick (sp?) for over 5 years for downloading a few files, why can't they lock away a virus author or spammer for operating without a permit?

Simple.

Money.

Mitnick's foes' lawyers claimed billions of dollars (that's laywer dollars, not real dollars, of course) of damage to the people padding the politician's pockets.

When spam gets there, we could count on the jack-booted thugs raiding a place or two in the night. Unfortunately, the spammers are getting richer, and trying to make laws that favor them...

--
For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.

Skimpy article. by mrsam · 2003-04-27 14:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

This article does not really gives much of an overview on the history of spam wars. The article leaves out more stuff that it mentions. I couldn't find any references to:

* Evolutionary progress from your garden-variety, run-of-the mill carpetbombing from the sender's ISP to hijacking of external mail relays, leading to most mail relays now being closed; to repeated gang-banging of every mail relay on the Internet, in the late '90s, that was running the completely fucked up Sun sendmail 8.6, which fails to record the sender's identity, turning it into a somewhat efficient anonymous spam forwarding service; to direct-from-dialup spamware that doesn't need mail relays and delivers directly to the recipients' mail servers; to spamware that scans and hijacks open proxies, and spam-forwarding trojan zombies that take over and infest Windows-based clients.

* The rise, fall, and bankruptcy of Apex Global Information Systems, the first commercial attempt to make a business model out of providing dedicated spam connectivity; with Cyberpromo, Nancynet, Marynet, and Sallynet spam factories as their charter "customers".

* The rise and fall of MAPS. The article makes out MAPS as the leading champions, but those in the know sadly know that MAPS is now a shadow of its former self.

* The rise and fall of ORBS, and a gaggle of similar open relay blacklists that sprouted up to supplement and replace.

* The rise, and hopefully the fall, of the trend where large backbones quietly agree to accept premium connectivity and hosting fees, in exchange for ignoring complaints about their spamming parasites, all the while flouting their supposed "anti-spam" Acceptable Usage Policies/Terms Of Service (documentation and proof available per request).

* The rise of the trend where spam farms are set up in third world countries, whose hosts completely ignore spam complaints and are generally better resistent to spam blacklists, since they don't send much mail to the US.

* The rise of SPEWS, as a partial response for a need for a successor to MAPS, and a surprising accept of SPEWS, which has an aggressive blacklisting policies, which flew in the face of conventional thinking that network providers will tremble with fear, run to hide in the nearest closet, and become completely paralized at a mere prospect of rejecting a single non-junk message.

There's plenty more subject matter for anyone who really wants to provide an overview of spam wars. This article seems a bit skimpy on the facts...

Re:Skimpy article. by tsvk · 2003-04-27 19:22 · Score: 1

This article does not really gives much of an overview on the history of spam wars. The article leaves out more stuff that it mentions.

Yes, I thougt so, too.

In the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email there's a good boilerplate respose that explains some of the history and the current status of blocklisting. The response is posted every now and then to answer someone new in the group who is blacklisted and does not grasp the methodology of blocklisting systems.

Here's a Google Groups link to it.

Several problems by ajs · 2003-04-27 14:47 · Score: 2, Informative

First off, the article is WAY behind the times on anti-spam techniques. SpamAssassin's statistical techniques far outstrip the simplistic features discussed. For example, it mentions obfuscation techniques, and yet SA is known to detect almost all of them one way or another, and even when it doesn't it catches the mail because it's in Razor2, comes from a BLed site, has obviously forged bits, doesn't look like valid mail to Bayes, etc, etc, etc.

Second, the article is also a bit naive on several points regarding blacklists. Many blacklists are good and useful, many are not. But taken as a whole, they present a spectrum of data that can be interpreted through a number of classical techniques that are applied to noisy data sources. Trusting any one BL or a small list is almost always a mistake, you need to build a sample set and determine who you trust and how much. SA does this, but it would be easy enough to build a BL-only SA-like tool for high-speed analysis on high volume ISPs and pipe-providers.

I'm getting worried that the problem of spam erradication is starting to look like the most divisive problem the net has faced to date. There are an awful lot of angry people, and those pitchforks and torches are starting to point in some very "infrastructurish" directions. Articles like this one, really don't help much....

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:51 · Score: 0

Touche. Tell me though if the following sounds much like the dogmas of your favorite religion. If not, we might do better to save the term 'religion ' for things that are much closer to the paradigmatic example of a religion -- the Judeo-Christian tradition. I'd be curious which of these secular humanist tenets you object to. My only reservation is with the notion of 'objective truth.'

# A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

# Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

# A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

# A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

# A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

# A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

# A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

From the Council for Secular Humanism.

Random ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 14:52 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is an idea that ran through my head. There are likely flaws with it (I can think of a few) but, you know, the more ideas that get out there, the better.

E-mail addresses are largely collected from web pages. It would be trivially easy for one person to set up a plain text web page that contains 10 MB of plain text bogus e-mail addresses, changed daily. But what if everyone did it? What if there were thousands of such pages (hundreds of thousands) on the web? Would it be possible to clog up spammers by flooding their address collectors with hundreds of millions of bogus e-mail addresses per day?

(Plenty of obvious objections of course. For example, all that cumulative wasted web storage space costs money. Also, spammers still test for validity of addresses. But, they'd have to do more such testing. And so on...)

Re:Random ideas by AndroidCat · 2003-04-27 20:06 · Score: 1

Great idea! Sort of like this one from 1997? :^)

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Random ideas by JuggleGeek · 2003-04-28 03:54 · Score: 1

There are tools that do that already. Google for "webpoison" or "wpoison" and you'll find lots of them.
But that doesn't really help. Spammers don't care if they have 500,000 garbage addresses in their list of 2 million, because they plan to use someone elses bandwidth when they send the mail, and they are giving false "From:" info so the bounces go to someone else. The undeliverables don't bother them at all.

Anyone know? by Otter · 2003-04-27 15:01 · Score: 1

Offtopic, but --

My domain name is being forged in headers by a spammer or spammers. I'm now receiving literally hundreds of bounces a day, for a mix of streaming gay porn, something in Russian and "Teenage Sluts Blow Chunks!".

What's the best response? Do I have any legal resource? Will this at least blow over eventually? Some research suggests the answers are deal with it, no and probably, but I'm curious to hear what anyone here has to suggest.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...

Re:Anyone know? by pe1chl · 2003-04-27 20:27 · Score: 1

I do have the same problem, but these bounces are not reaching me as they are sent to all kinds of different mail addresses at my domain.
I do note that most bounces come from Russian mailservers.

I cut 95% of all spam by some simple rules. Things like refusing all mail from yahoo, looking up sender and relay IP addresses in China/Korea blocklists, and verifying that the sender address is mailable before accepting mail.
The remainder is caught by Mozilla's Junk mail filter.
Re:Anyone know? by JuggleGeek · 2003-04-28 04:02 · Score: 1

I recommend you visit this page where you can join the SueSpammers mailing list.

Re:Waterhose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 15:04 · Score: 0

Where can I purchase a wireless waterhose? I am tired of dealing with tangled waterhose when washing my car or the lawn. Thanks.

Sorry, I've already applied for a patent for that. The method to transfer water from one location to another without a "hose" or physical connection between the source and destination.

My marketing company has been working overtime and so far has come up with this hit:
"All of your Humidifiers/Dehumidifiers are belong to us!!"

Some may spout off about the the earths natural rain cycle, evaporation, or the jet stream and clouds and such as prior art but it's too damn late as I got it past the USPTO..

How to stop spam transmission by Billy+the+Mountain · 2003-04-27 15:08 · Score: 0

The idea of charging for spam has merit, but the fact that money is involved makes me quesy. Money is expensive to secure and there is no current model on the Net for microtransactions of a penny.

My solution involves requiring the sender to perform one minute's worth of SETI@Home, protein folding, etc., from one of the distributed processing sites (DPS).

With some thought, it probably wouldn't be too hard to implement in an initial small group and then start scaling it up. For example, a listserv could require all participants to subscribe to a DPS's email service. The DPS accepts the completed mini-work-units and creates an X.511 certificate that the sender can place in the header of the email. The SMTP server then verifies the legitimacy of the certificate.

Depending on the success of this, more and more
SMTP servers would pop up that have the option to check for valid x.511 certificates from DPSs for those users that request it.

BTM

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.

Good for you, then... by ktakki · 2003-04-27 15:16 · Score: 2, Funny

I can't say that I haven't given my address to people who "aren't stupid or assholes", but I doubt that this is the vector for most of the spam I receive.

You say you've had your POP3 account for over a year; I've had mine for nine years. In that time, I've posted it to Usenet, used it as a mailto: on web pages, signed up for things with it, and used this address to register domains, always unmunged, sans "NOSPAM" or "remove this" or "@@@".

Even if I'd done none of these, or did munge my address, I'd still get spam, albeit somewhat less. Spammers use dictionary attacks, too, or they create a list from /users, or your DSL provider "shares" your address with their "strategic partners". Never tasted that canned pink meat? You Will.

Enjoy it while you can, for I see a million penis enlargers in your future.

k.

--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

MOD PARENT: +1 funny by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 15:22 · Score: 0

damn, that's the funniest shit I've seen for a while. You managed to combine a humourous sounding dyslexiaism with the cliched boxen method of making a plural. Classic!

American Programmer? by brundlefly · 2003-04-27 16:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Bah. Obviously "American Scientists" are not "programmers", because each of those sub-pages generates a JavaScript error for me. (If you "scientists" are reading, the onload handler for the BODY tag has a call to some Macromedia Dreamweaver JavaScript libraries which are missing. Either supply the libs or remove the onload.)

Re: There are legal remedies available by mdfst13 · 2003-04-27 16:15 · Score: 1

Yes, forging headers is fraud. You can sue based on damage to reputation and cost of processing the bounce messages. However, you will first need to determine who is sending the spam. To try to do that, you will have to do some research. If possible, obtain full headers for each type of email, so that you can see who is sending them. The other way you can determine identity is to follow the money. How is the spammer going to make a profit? Selling porn sites? Referrals? Just getting paid to send the emails by someone else?

If you could use help interpreting headers, send me an email at my Slashdot userid at yahoo dot com. Please include Otter from Slashdot in the subject if you send me email; otherwise, I might think it is spam...

Re:shazow@rogers.com by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 16:15 · Score: 0

-SpamTroll

TroLL
tROll
TROLL!

Re:There's a Reasonable, Albeit Draconian Solution by barzok · 2003-04-27 16:23 · Score: 1

We license drivers. How many idiots do you see on the road every day when you drive to and from work, who do not pay a penalty for being idiots? Think licensing computer users would be any more effective?

Then again, I think driver licensing is too lax anyway. Changing a tire should be a required piece of it unless you are physically incapable of doing it.

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 17:43 · Score: 0

I read through the site, and it seems to be an incoherant ramble at best. If he wants to "prove" something, why can't he go about it in a more direct fashion instead of attacking the reader with nonsensical gibberish?

Re:There's a Reasonable, Albeit Draconian Solution by NeuroManson · 2003-04-27 18:04 · Score: 1

"We license drivers. How many idiots do you see on the road every day when you drive to and from work, who do not pay a penalty for being idiots? Think licensing computer users would be any more effective?"

Ahhh, but then what would insurance companies do for a living? Get a real job? No, wait...

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

TMDA by JQuazar · 2003-04-27 18:18 · Score: 1

I'm surprised TMDA hasn't been mentioned yet. The Economist does note "challenge and response" systems, this seems the right answer to me.

http://www.tmda.net/ seems quite good, check it out.

The DMCA? by jtdubs · 2003-04-27 18:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Shouldn't we be able to prosecute spammer's under the DMCA?

Spam filters are obviously a device used to regulate what mail you receive. They used to effectively block spam. However, spam has evolved to beat the filters.

This implies that the spammers determined the method the filter used, so that they could beat it. In other words, they reverse-engineered it.

So, aren't spammers circumventing an access-control device via knowledge they gained by reverse-engineering a product?

It's that the epitome of illegal under the DMCA?

Justin Dubs

Evolution + spamassain??? by skaeight · 2003-04-27 18:35 · Score: 1

I've been trying to figure out how to set up evolution to work with spam assasin. I'm running debian unstable, so I can get pretty much whatever packages I need, but I'm not really sure where to start.

Is anyone aware of any good guides or howtos, so I can RTFM (read the fine manual) and get this set up. I've been toying with just using Mozilla 1.3 w/ the built in baysean filtering, but I really kind of like the pim aspects of evolution. Thanks.

Re:Drug Dealing is a victimless crime by billstewart · 2003-04-27 18:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Tobacco dealers don't go shooting each other on street corners. Tobacco is more addictive than heroin, and costs about as much per user per day to make (all the rest is the cost of the black market.)

Liquor dealers don't go shooting each other on the street corners, though people do rob liquor stores and drunks do get into fights. A day's worth of medical-priced opiates is cheaper than a half-bottle of bad gin.

Zucchini dealers don't go shooting each other, though there are the occasional Midwestern terrorist events (leaving bags of zucchini on other people's doorsteps during the growing season); marijuana's about as easy to grow as zucchini if you're not trying to hide it from the cops.

If we legalize drugs, street gangs may not stop carrying, but they'll mostly stop dealing, because you'll be able to get better-quality pharmaceutical drugs at the drug store and marijuana at the tobacco or liquor store, and at that point drug dealing turns into honest work, not significantly more profitable than selling flowers on the street corners except for a bit of low-markup business selling to minors along with selling them cigarettes. Might as well go back to stealing hubcaps.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

No spammer has died yet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 19:09 · Score: 0

When one does, the rest will reconsider.

Re:No spammer has died yet by AndroidCat · 2003-04-27 20:11 · Score: 1

Not true. A couple years of years ago two pump'n'dump stock spammers/scammers were ventilated in New York. They obviously tried their scams on the wrong people.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 19:35 · Score: 0

Some big corp with just a little bit of insight is going to buy the intellectual rights of the theory, patent it and make billions, control all the possibilities for time-travel as described in the guys maths. We're screwed....

Still looking by stud9920 · 2003-04-27 20:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Still looking

the're great at statistics by slasher+guy · 2003-04-27 20:33 · Score: 1

But a discordant note comes from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which surveyed 2,500 Internet users, asking only about e-mail they receive at work. Half said they get no spam at all in their workplace accounts, and 71 percent reported no more than "a little."

so that's 121%? cool.

Another look at a stupid spammer by huistr · 2003-04-27 20:45 · Score: 1

The following article in The New York Times recently cought my attention: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/national/27JOBS. html?th=&pagewanted=print&position= Specifically, the last 2 paragraphs. To spare you the trouble of registering and scrolling down: it's a 56 years old woman laid off from Bayer in 2001, unable to find a job in 2 years. Guess what is she poised to do now... Try to plot those "spam volume surged from 10% to 40%" and Dow Jones charts together, - I don't think it's a coincidence. Several million people including hundreds of thousands of programmers went out of the loop in 2 years, with less and less hope for better economy. What fraction of that army is looking for "business opportunities" now? A plausible estimate would be the same as for the spam response rate, which is 0.01-1% (the numbers i see in various articles on the subject), - quite enough to fill up everybody's in-box. The future is promissing though. Sooner or later people will sort out all those enrons and worldcoms, figure out what they want and push Dow and Nasdaq over 12,000 and 5,000 respectively, and you'll find Alan Ralsky toiling in the cubicle next to yours, bitching about the boss...

Re:Another look at a stupid spammer by huistr · 2003-04-27 21:07 · Score: 1

aforementioned article in NYT>
My apologies for messy format (never used html mail before).

Re:HELO forging and detecting by dmeranda · 2003-04-27 21:53 · Score: 3, Informative

I too have noticed that the vast majority of spammers now seem to forge the HELO/EHLO greeting. And as most non-spammers don't, this is actually a wonderful way to catch them. I've even seen them send the IP address of my secondary mail gateway in hopes that my primary mail server would fully trust it (obtained probably by looking up my MX records). I run a mail gateway for a corporate domain an get on average 30 to 40 thousand spams per day. Using sendmail with it's milter programming interface I put the HELO greeting though a very strict check. For those contemplating doing the same...

Per RFC 2821, the HELO greeting string should be either the FQDN of the sending hostname, or the IP address of the sending system in SMTP syntax (e.g., [1.2.3.4] or [IPV6:abcd::1234]
Most spammers don't even bother with a domain name, using a random greeting like "sqss7e". If it doesn't have a domain, throw it away. Same if you see an IP address without the [] brackets; it's another dumb spammer that can't read the RFC's.
Sometimes spammers don't even hide their spammy-sounding names in the HELO greeting even though they go to a lot of trouble to make up legitimate From headers. A good regular expression check for common words like "offers" or "optin" in the HELO greeting can work wonders (but use caution).
When checking if a spammer if forging your own address, be sure to check for ALL hostnames under your domain (say you have acme.com, then check for both "acme.com" and "*.acme.com", and use a case-insensitive comparison). Also check for ALL your possible IP address even if you don't use them all. A remote site using your own IP or hostname is never legitimate.
If you are running a gateway, you need to treat outbound versus inbound messages differently. This can usually be done by checking the connecting IP address to see if it is one of yours. Also be sure to check for 127.*.*.* and ::1 (IPv6).
Be aware that some mail clients are broken and don't send conforming HELO greeting; this includes Mozilla (see Bug 68877). So don't be too agressive with your HELO checks for mail originating from the inside of your organization.

One last note about Forged AOL Spam after talking to one of their postmasters...all their legitimate mail by corporate policy is always sent from within the *.aol.com or *.aol.net domains. This will be in both the HELO as well as a reverse DNS lookup of the connecting IP address. If you don't see this in the HELO and DNS but you see a MAIL FROM for aol.com, it's probably spam.

I wish more big ISPs would provide public information about how to better detect forged mail claiming to come from their sites. For instance if I see a MAIL FROM *@yahoo.com, then should the connecting IP address always be from a *.yahoo.com host? Some ISP's like hotmail seemingly always add in a known predictable header whose absence indicates spam. But I can't reliably make these calls unless the ISPs provide that information. Also, beware that some semi-legitimate sites, like Monster.com forge the sending address on purpose; so if you want to receive resumes you may need to whitelist them.

Junk mail by zykem · 2003-04-27 22:25 · Score: 1

What about Junk mail I receive on a daily basis? I would say that 75% of my mail is junk mail. I don't see SPAM ever going to go away.

Re:TIME... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-27 22:30 · Score: 0

There is, in fact, nothing at all there to disprove. He picks four points on the Earth's surface, says they each turn once in 24 hours, and claims this supports his frankly bizarre rants about religion and ethics. Of course, he could just as easily have picked six points, or two, or ten, or three hundred and seventeen, depending on what particular variant of numerology he was using that day.

The only actual, straightforward, factual claim I can find on that page is this:

"Your midday is someone else's midnight, someone else's sundown and even someone else's sunup."

No shit, Sherlock! Shame I had to scroll through a couple of dozen screenfuls of self-aggrandisement and incoherent bragging before I got to this.

Let me guess... this is your site, right? ;-)

Buy this Stock!!!! by thogard · 2003-04-27 23:05 · Score: 1

Years ago I got a offer from Madera International (symbol WOOD) and they said their stock was going to hit $1.20 per share at any time. This was very early in the spaming game and I wanted to find out how much people would fall for this. I called up my broker and asked how much to buy this fine stock. She said it would be $25 in fees and the smallest lot I could buy was something like 400 shares since their value was so low. Due to some miscommunication, she took this as a request to buy 400 shares. Since it would cost me another $25 to unload it, I decided, I would keep it as a reminder to chart its progress over the next few years. From a high of nearly .06 a share it simply fell. Today I found that its value is now $0.00. Right now the 1st link from google is a SEC report about fraud and stuff. One of these days I think I'll write up this story to tell other people what kind of people are dealing with when they get stock tips from people they don't know.

Madera International started out importing assult rifles until a law stoped that. Then they went into the business of cutting down rainforest. For a while they had a nice web page up saying how you could give them $10 and they would plant a tree in the rainforest to replace one cut down by loggers. According to the SEC, that wasn't their only scam.

OpenPGP by Phantasmo · 2003-04-28 02:35 · Score: 1

Just set up a procmail filter to block any mail that isn't signed or encrypted with PGP.

Of course, you'd miss out on a lot of legitimate mail.

--

The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience

They're better than you, apparently. by sean.peters · 2003-04-28 07:45 · Score: 1

If 71% got no more than a little, that obviously would INCLUDE the half who got none... since half is, in fact, no more than a little.

Sean

Re:HELO forging and detecting by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-28 10:53 · Score: 0

It's worth noting that the RFCs specifically say that you shouldn't refuse mail based on the contents of the HELO or EHLO commands. It's your MTA, so it's your choice to do so, but it does mean you're not RFC compliant.

Article doesn't mention counterattacks by dcmeserve · 2003-04-28 13:46 · Score: 1

The article mentions a few examples of different ways to try to shield against spam, but that doesn't help the ISP's who still have to deal with the mails coming in (and from angry customers who had legitimate email filtered out when the ISP did its own filtering). Plus all the time investment one must do to try to find a good filter, and keep updating it.

Trying to attack the spammers themselves is futile. They'll just change ISP's, accounts, use foreign relays, etc. Also there is a growing trend of innocent victims whose email addr has been put as the "Reply-to" field in the spam emails. Passing laws and other "infrastructure" changes also are a threat to freedoms of speech and general internet use.

No, what has to be done is to go after those who sponser the spams in question. They cannot hide by using false addresses -- if they did, what would be the point of paying the spammers to send email?

The article has it wrong, I think, in saying that we cannot concentrate on the commercial aspects of spam. The only reason it is so pervasive is that the spammers get paid to send their spam. Your average "Jesus-saves" freak is not going to be spending the money to do that. Even if there are some who do it, they aren't businesses; the level of spam that they fund will be below the level at which a spammer can stay in business.

So... how do we go after the spam-sponsors? A coordinated DDOS attack could get one thrown in jail, because it's a knowing attack on the accessibility of a legitimate business. But there's one thing about spam -- what the article called the defining characteristic -- in that it's sent to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of addresses at a time. The spam itself provides the coordination for an attack; no individual attacker has to do more than access the web site a few times. Or enter bogus credit-card orders*. Or anything else that the web-site owner will have to pay for if done in enough volume.

If we all just made it a habit -- receive a spam, go to the web site referenced, and click around a bit, enter in your credit card # with the wrong address a few times, etc, then there would be very real costs mounting, which would quickly overshadow the increased sales that the 0.05% spam respondents would bring. It doesn't even have to be a majority of spam recipients doing this, as the article points out is a drawback of spam-shielding techniques; it only has to be enough to do the required damage to the spam sponsors.

* Just a random credit card # won't work, apparently. There's some kind of checksum technique or something. Perhaps a good way would be to use your own card #, but enter a false name/address. Basically, what needs to happen is for their ordering system to be forced to actually query the bank to make sure it's a valid credit-card account. Each time it comes back rejected, or if too many come back rejected, the bank starts charging them extra.

--
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell

Whitelist is the answer by snakecoder · 2003-04-30 12:25 · Score: 1

By using CPU or monetary postage for unidentified users. Or the are "you human"? Bitmap techniques, you can essentially stop spam in it's tracks.

The problem is implementing a new e-mail protocol that supports this.

I personally realized this a while back when I started recieving porn spam on my yahoo messenger. By only accepting messages from my friends list, I was able to stop it. If someone I didn't know wanted to IM me they had to request that I add them (standard challenge and response). Since them I signed up for a mailblocks account to manage my hotmail spam (200 spams per week). Spam has dropped to Zero (although there are still a few bugs they are working out to handle mail lists etc.

--
-Nuke the moon

Re:There's a Reasonable, Albeit Draconian Solution by minas-beede · 2003-04-30 12:45 · Score: 1

"Simply put, we should require some form of an operators' license to own or operate a computer. Despite there being radical differences between the types of machinery, an adequate comparison would be to either automobiles or firearms licensing legislation."

That's going in exactly the wrong direction. All the anti-spam solutions that aren't succeeding against spam (but you really should make sure you define "succeed" if you don't want to err in this sort of statement) came from people you would (I presume) license to be on the internet. All those smarts haven't done the job, have they? You also (like many before you) gloss over the fact that the huge majority of the people you would deny a license to be on the internet are running exactly what the software vendors sold them, configured exactly as the vendor had it configured as the default. The smarts you would require them to have would be to not trust the software vendors. OK, I'll give you that one. But why isn't that repeated incessantly until people learn it? You want to make them be smart - what do you do to educate them?

The "smart" people on the internet, the ones you would grant licenses, still almost 100% ignore their big daily opportunity to hit spammers where it hurts: the tests the spammers are doing on systems in these "smart" peoples' own domains to see if there are vulnerable IPs. Spammy as much as says "hurt me," the "smart" people say "no." That makes no sense, that's worse than trusting the vendors.

So: watch out: the licensing might get into what you'd consider the wrong hands: mine, say. I'd require every operator to demonstrate the ability to think logically - there go 90% of your "smart" people down the tubes. They still don't get it that telling a spammer "550 we do not relay" is telling him exactly what he needs to know - it helps the spammer. There's a difference between what you do to protect your own system (and what you do to secure your own system) and what works best for the benefit of the internet as a whole. Spammers every day provide opportunities for operators to cause the same spammers significant harm - opportunities on the operators' own computers. 99.99% of them simply secure the system and throw away the opportunity. Then they complain about spammers and maybe about the dummies that shouldn't be licensed to be on the internet. Uh-huh. Sure. There's Dummies and then there's Dummies.

Thee's a reasonable, non-Draconian solution: hit spammers where it hurts and where they are not now being hit. Most spam is abuse spam. Screw up the abuse pathway and that spam dies. That can be done, now, with no change in the internet or in any protocol. While spammers test IP's on DSL and cable blocxks for open relay the battle cna be engaged on those same DSL and cable blocks - individuals can fight spam. Even individuals running (gasp) Windows.

See: http://jackpot.uk.net

Maybe this'll stop spam by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-30 18:58 · Score: 0

There is a talk at my university that makes sense. It has to do with not accepting email unless it has a certificate that the sender did a 10 second compution. This would cripple mass email sending. Fighting Spam may be easier than you think

Re:Drug Dealing NOT is a victimless crime by skidv · 2003-05-01 01:51 · Score: 1

Drug dealing is harmful to families.

Children of drug-addicted parents are often under nourished, under educated and abused.

Drugs affect your ability to make reasoned choices. Dependancy is not good and any child of a drug-dependant would tell you (if they could). It makes for a crazy perspective and the result is that healthy behaviors are rejected because they are not familiar.

Babies born from crack-addicted mothers can be crack-addicted at birth and have a higher rate of birth defects due to the impact of the drug use and blood flow.

SA works best when regularly updated by KMSelf · 2003-05-01 10:48 · Score: 1

...which is problematic for many users, as they don't have effective ways of regularly updating their systems.

Of course, Debian GNU/Linux shines in this regard, and several of the RPM-based distros are starting to address the need, though IMO poorly.

Windows users are SOL until someone decides to offer a service specifically of providing SpamAssassin updates. This tends to make the proxy solution more appealing, however it's the crucial last bit of fine-tuning of SA rules which is the golden touch, and running through a proxy makes this more difficult.

--

What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

Slashdot Mirror

A Timeline Of Spam And Antispam

161 comments